The Japanese predicted twenty million clandestine deaths defending the home islands. The more revised US estimates predicted up to four million Allied casualties with one million dead. Not to mention the 1.6million Soviet troops who had just entered the theatre of conflict and who were ruthless in their warfighting and had a tendency to die in their thousands themselves.
In comparison, the atomic bombs killed between 150,000-250,000 depending on the source. Can you really say that they were unnecessary when looking at these statistics? They unquestionably saved MILLIONS and MILLIONS of lives.
Sure, it could be said that the use of atomic weapons created a nuclear precedent that led to the Cold War, but the Soviets themselves were developing atomic weapons anyway as Soviet spies had gained access to the Manhattan Project and implemented an atomic weapons program in Russia.
Other historians have said that the US dropped them simply to show their might and assert their authority. This is absolute rubbish, the US homefront was relatively unscathed and industry was booming with exports and war manufacturing. The US was in pole position to dominate the post-war world with or without the atomic bomb.
Furthermore, cases have been made for using the bombs over non-populated areas, but where's the guarantee that Japan would have heeded this warning? They outright rejected the threat of annihilation promised in the Potsdam declaration and despite some cities suffering up to 97% damage as a result of area bombing and firebombing, Japan still refused to surrender.
Elsewhere, historians believed that a continued naval blockade along with conventional bombing would have eventually brought Japan to her knees, however, the US nor the allies for that matter had any intention of allowing a war that had raged for six years to rumble on any further when the means to end it swiftly were readily available. Anyway, with the Soviets invading on the other side, allied lives would still have been lost in their droves, not to mention the lives of the fanatical defenders. It wasn't just the Japanese army that was defending the islands, but a 'civilian militia' that numbered in the millions, all of whom were expected to fight until the last bullet.
I see these comments about 'de-classified documents estimating 40,000-60,000 deaths' and can't help but laugh at your naivety. On Iwo Jima alone there were almost 50,000 combined casualties, and while it was soverign territory, the home islands of Japan would prove a different battle.
The terrain of Japan made a land invasion highly predictable to the defenders and the planned guerilla style resistance would have created a battle of attrition. The death toll would have been millions, WITHOUT QUESTION.
I am a former member of the British military and a third-year American History student, I know what I'm talking about. I challenge any of you to come up with a more thoroughly researched argument.
I think we should have dropped the bomb on Japan they deserved it. Remember at Pearl Harbor, they bombed us. The war would keep going until they were tired of fighting or until they didn't have any more men to fight with or even if they didn't have any more equipment to fight with. I think you should agree with me.
We dropped the bomb because the Japanese were ruthless jerks who dropped bombs on us first. They destroyed our ships making it to where we couldn't ship as much and defend ourselves. They tore apart Pearl Harbor so much that they could have invaded there and took over and they were sad they didn't. It was only fair that we bomb them in return. It may have killed hundreds but they killed our people, too!
Yes we should have because they had plenty of opportunities to surrender and they didn't. We told them if they didn't surrender, there would be utter mass destruction put upon them. They chose to ignore it and brush it off. If we had invaded, then probably 1/4th of Japan's population would have been killed. Yes, it was terrible that so many people died, but in the end, it was what the U.S. Thought was necessary. Japan still didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped, only after the second one was dropped, the emperor of Japan stepped in and gave the final decision of surrendering.
If the atomic bomb didn't happen a lot of people would have died for no reason. The Japanese only kept fighting because there leader was making them. All the had to do was just kick him out or something. They started the war so they deserve to bombed. It saved millions of people lives.
Think of it, they killed about 15000 people, but if they didn't do it, who knows what could of happened! The war have gone on and on and billions of people could have died! Yes, they could have just stopped at Hiroshima, but still! They killed thousands to save millions.
What if that was your Family member, Friend, Lover.
What if that was you fighting in the war. Would you want to get killed, So all people who said we shouldnt have dropped the bomb i think you need Think agian because without that bomb we would have lost more than we killed so think about that maybe just maybe you will change you mind.
The dropping of those two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was very bad. However, a land invasion would have costed an excess of one million American lives. The Japanese of the 1940's would have fought to the last inch of that island, and the body count would have been astronomically higher if the bombs weren't dropped.
The us wanted to end the war quickly without costing the lives of more soldiers. So the president agreed to drop the bombs. It made the Japanese surrender because they knew that if they continued the war they could not win. The atomic bomb's destructive power would have defeated them anyways.
A lot of the arguments I am seeing on the opposing side talks about how lots of innocent people would have been spared if the bombs were not dropped but in reality that would not have been the case.
If the US would have continued fighting without the dropping of the bomb it would have ended in the invasion of the Japanese home islands since a larger majority of Japanese people did not believe in surrender because of their Samurai code. If the US had decided to go ahead with an invasion it would have resulted in a lot more deaths since the Japanese were teaching children to run into large groups of US soldiers and under tanks and then trigger the explosives, School children were also told to attack them with sharpened wooden sticks. These sort of tactics would probably have had a lot of physiological affects on a lot of people. On top of that once the Nazis had been defeated the Soviet Union had set up a lot of puppet governments in European countries that the Nazis had previously been in control of. If the US were to do a conventional invasion the Soviet Union would probably have done the same thing, with this happening to the Japanese Home Islands a lot of other countries may have also turned against the Japanese (mainly the Pacific ocean countries).
In conclusion the US was also looking for a fast way out of the war that would have resulted in the last amount of US citizen deaths. The US also gave Japan a chance to surrender before they dropped the 1st bomb but the Japanese government did not understand the power of this weapon since nothing like this has never been seen before. In response to people who say the the bomb was dropped without warning and that their was no reason to do so, the bombing of pearl harbour procured without warning or a solid reason.
Sorry If I missed anything important or if some of my arguments are not 100% accurate, most of my sources are from western documentaries which can be a little 1 sided.
(also to lazy to fix any Grammar issues cause I was in class while typing this and that is now over :) )
One bomb is understandable, but to be completely honest Japan would have surrendered without bombs. The mass murdering (because that's exactly what it was) of millions of Japanese citizens was unnecessary! We would have been devastated if they bombed America and it was our families that were wiped out. Then after all of it America decides they can say who gets to use their nuclear weapons and who cant. I don't think so!
So what if the U.S. would've fought in the war longer? Japan would've been spared the horror. Harmless, innocent civilians were brutally murdered, the subsequent radiation made the cities unlivable for the longest time, and the environment was harmed horribly. Forget bombings, we should've fought longer!
If America was trying to show that it had power, they could have dropped the bomb in a less populated area still showing the damage the bomb could do without having to take so many innocent souls. That would have scared the Japanese and still caused them to surrender, especially considering the fact that America could have been planning to drop more and destroy everything.
Even though bombing was required to end the war, the US could have dropped fire bombs which would have had a similar effect in terms of death tolls and destruction to the infrastructure, but would not have lead to the after effects of an atomic bomb, like the contamination of their water sources and crop, and radiation poisoning. It also lead to other countries developing WMD and nuclear missile programs. This has become a huge threat to World Peace and had the US not played the "Atomic Bomb card", we wouldn't be facing this threat today.
Not all of the people in Japan were guilty. Some were innocent, and weren't even involved. It just wasn't very fair to the citizens in Japan. They should have just stuck with a simple war. At least less people would have died and the innocent people would have been safe.
Why end war with more war? It is not at all necessary. It isn't right to kill kids and murder whole families just because the government thinks it is okay to do so. It isn't right, and the United States should not have done what they did. It was the wrong decision for the United States to do that to innocent people.
The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not criminals. They were just normal people going about their day. Not only was it inhumane to the survivors, but that land is now ruined by radiation. There is no excuse for causing the devastation that the U.S. Released upon that area of land.
No, because the reason the United States did this was just to intimidate Russia and many, many innocent lives were lost. There were diplomatic options available. The United States remains the only country to have used such a devastating bomb to this day. It was evil and a black mark on the United States.
So 9/11 was so bad, but you can kill thousands more and slowly let thousands more die from the radiation and die even now, but if some died from a plane it has to become World Tower day. The nukes were hundreds of times worse than 9/11 but America we did it to save our life so the lives of Americans are more important then the live of thousands of Japanese women, men and children.
If you were a small 5 year old child and you were just sat inside your house with your mother, and suddenly, the whole world seems to have disappeared and you're dying....Well, it's not really a great idea to drop atomic bombs then, is it? Yes, Japan was totally wrong in attacking Pearl Harbour, and going along with the wrong side, but in the end, sometimes you have to think about the negatives before the positives. Japan had already lost (even though they wouldn't admit it to themselves), and the U.S., England and France had already won. Japan were the only enemies who were still trying to fight. Fair enough, if it weren't for the bombs, Japan mightn't have surrendered. Who knows? But murdering the millions of such innocent lives isn't really the best answer. Nor is invading. Maybe if the government came up with a better plan then that would've been necessary, not nuclear bombings which has totally wiped out any chance of world peace. Killing and injuring millions of innocent people isn't the best solution to ending a world war, in my opinion. In fact, if I had ended the war like that, I would have it on my conscience forever. I would feel like a murderer who got away with it.