Amazon.com Widgets

Was the use of nuclear weapons necessary to end World War II in the Pacific?

Asked by: JinxMage2314
  • Nuke 'em hard.

    Nuking the Japanese saved a ton of Allied lives. If the nukes hadn't dropped, Operation Downfall would have happened, and the Japanese would still surrender, but this time a lot more on both sides would have died.
    As soon as he heard one of his comrades scream "SQUAD BROKEN!", Eduardo the Space Marine knew that he was doomed.

  • Many Lives Saved for those Given

    Japan was a nation, rather an empire, that believed in its emperor to the end. More importantly it would have willingly followed the Bushido Warriors Code to the death. Are atomic bombs a good thing? No. Is dropping two to end a war quickly rather than loosing millions of American lives and tens of millions of Japanese lives to end the war a good thing? Yes. Although the bombs are a horrible thing, war itself would have proven much more horrible. Japan was training anyone and everyone who could wield a stick to fight off the invaders. This proven by wartime footage taken by the Japanese for propaganda uses to show the training of children in their early teens. Woman would be expected to strap bombs to themselves and die in the name of the emperor. Without the bombs- a pure example of total destruction if resistance is given without the attacker giving lives- the war would have been horrible.

    One point i do disagree with when this debate is had though is the necessity to drop two nuclear bombs. There are many indications and historical records that Japan offered to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. The United States still dropped the second to scare the USSR and show off its superpower status. This is arrogant and wasted the lives of those in Nagasaki. So ultimately, the first bomb was absolutely necessary. The second, not so much.

  • Fighting to the death for God

    It's is obvious that now that the "best" generation is nearly gone, the lessons of the second world war have been lost. Must we fight another to remember those lessons? The average Japanese was fighting for their god who was incarnate in the person of their emperor Hirohito. Tojo had hopes of domination of the Pacific area, but the soldier fought on for their god Hirohito. It was cowardice to surrender and the person who did so was worse than a pig and should be put to death by his own people. For that reason, the Japanese soldier would never surrender and would gladly become a Kamakazi to protect his country and for the honor of his emperor. There is no question that the Japanese would have fought until the last one of them were dead. Millions upon millions of people would have died. There is only one reason why they surrendered and why Japan still exists as a country. Their god, Hirohito, took pity upon his people. Tojo would never have agreed to it. He took his own life rather than surrender. Their god told them to surrender. He had seen what the atomic bomb would do, and did not want his people to be utterly destroyed through the effects of the bomb. Conventional warfare would have never caused him nor Tojo to end the war, but the completely horrible effects of the atomic bomb caused him to sue for peace. Once a people think that they must continue on for the honor of their god, they no longer act rationally, but will continue on in spite of the terrible effects of war. The same thing is happening today with ISIS. The only problem, is that THEIR god is not a person as Hirohito was to call for the end to the war. I fear the end of the world as we know it is at hand. We didn't learn the lesson of the second world war, and we have no god to stop this one.

  • Japan would not have surrendered without it

    Top Japanese officials many years after the war claimed that the nuclear bomb saved lives on both sides as Japan was willing to fight to the last man in an invasion. Japan had preached how one must protect his nation and how surrender was cowardly and dishonorable, so they would have fought until there was no more Japan. However, with the dropping of the nuclear bomb Japanese leaders could say "hey look what they are gonna do to us, in this situation surrender isn't cowardly, its necessary". Japan was willing to FIGHT to the last man, but they were not willing to be destroyed by nuclear weaponry where they could do no harm to their enemy.

  • It was Not Necessary, but Useful

    There were a few reason why the United States used atomic bombs to end World War II.

    The first reason was to ensure Japan would quickly surrender. While it was true that Japan was on-the-ropes, it would have taken the United States an enormous amount of man-power to completely occupy the Japanese homeland. The casualties to both sides would have been enormous. The United States could have endured these casualties and still won, but they considered it morally wrong to allow many hundreds of thousands of people to die in battle when a couple atomic bombs could be dropped (with much fewer casualties, and none of those being American casualties) to end the War entirely on their terms.

    The second, less compelling, reason was to intimidate U.S.S.R and the rest of the communist nations. No other nation in the world at the time had developed such devastating weapons. On paper, the United States had the perfect excuse (ending a war) to show to the world just what the U.S. military could do. The United States feared that after World War II was over, a World War III would break out between the communist nations and the capitalist nations. To prevent this, the United States believed that an excessive show of force would deter the U.S.S.R and their allies from mounting an offensive against the U.S. and their allies. They believed that the atomic bomb would be the ultimate deterrent against another global war simply because of the sheer amount of destruction it could cause.

    So, in short, there was no requirement that the U.S. had to use nuclear weapons to end WWII, but there were significant advantages (at least from the U.S. point of view) to using nuclear weapons to end the War than refraining.

  • It was not necessary, no.

    Little Boy and Fat Man were the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively under the orders of President Truman. Considering how weak Japan was already, the dropping of the plutonium implosion-type and uranium gun-type bombs the equivalent of a massive overkill. That is not to say that I don't believe it was a wise decision. The use of the military weapon allowed the United States to avoid another direct confrontation and avoid the loss of American life. Hideki Tojo was also given warning prior to both bombs. Some would argue that, because a proper demonstration of the awful effect of the bombs was not provided, the warning was not sufficient, but that is (of course) up for debate.

  • It was not necessary.

    The U.S. could have used the bombs in an uninhabited area as a warning of its power.

    The bombs were used for diplomatic political reasons rather than military, in my opinion.
    It was not military because:
    - Japan was already weak and their surrender was eventually coming, the bombs only made it come faster.
    - Casualty estimates of an American invasion were exaggerated.

    It was diplomatic because:
    - The U.S. wanted to specifically impress the Soviet Union with its atomic bombs and show its power to the world.
    - The U.S. rushed to use the bombs before the Soviet Union would invade Japan and expand its influence in the region.

  • It was not necessary.

    Japan was already weak near the end of the war, they would have had to fight with sticks if the war went on. The allies made it a war crime to kill civilians so those bomb should not have been dropped. This proves that the u.S is not responsible enough to possess nuclear weapons.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.