Should the US have used the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II?

Asked by: jgeller
  • It saved lives

    After the allies had invaded Okinawa in 1945 they looked towards the main islands of Japan and were planning for the direct invasion. They estimated some 1 million soldiers were needed to take the islands in an unlimited time span. They were preparing for a long slugish fight against and enemy whois devoted to fight till the end and wouldn't give up but instead die taking as many allied lives as they possibly could. The Allied high command in the Pacific estimated that they would have sustained over than 175,500 casualties to force the Japanese to surrender. And because Stalin refused to commit troops into the invasion of mainland Japan but only Manchuria and the far north islands which were captured by the Japanese. This had been evident as the allies gave Stalin a total of 90 days to join the war against Japan, it was only on the last day that he committed soviet troops against Japan. The only other option was to use experimental technology designed in the 1930s to split the atom, cause mass devastation and force the Imperial Japanese into and unconditional surrender. The losses of an enemy who would not surrender and kill over 175,000 allied soldiers and add many years onto the war outweighed that loss of over 50,000 Japanese lives and end the war within a few days after the drop of the bomb.

  • Of course. ,

    The atomic bomb was one of the most genius ideas to end a war. The United States didn't come home from World War II in the same celebration they did when they came home from World War I. The United States army was battered worse than it ever was, and people where tired of fighting.

    That's when Japan had bombed the naval base in Pearl Harbor, and everything changed. It was the World War II version of 9/11, the only issue was that so many soldiers we had already died. It's not like we were already fighting a war on Japan, it wasn't until Pearl Harbor that we decided to fight.

    Now this is a major issue that the United States had to deal with. There was two options in response to a 9/11 type situation after we declared war.

    Now, you may think that I mean we were battered when we declared, war. That is not at all what I mean. By the time we dropped the atomic bomb, we were already battered.

    So here's the options to end the war: Invade Japan with an already beaten and bludgeoned army that has hardly any fight left in them, and risk the lives of 125,000 U.S. Americans.

    Or we can drop a large bomb on two of it's largest economic ports, and hit them where it hurts, without having our army get any more damaged. The bomb was not meant to kill the lives of the Japanese, it was meant to destroy the city themselves, causing a huge depression for Japan's economy, and saving the lives of thousands.

    So, while it had a bad effect on the lives of innocent Japanese it was not the intention of the United States and reduced more trouble than it caused.

  • A war is a war.

    Before you all attack me for this, let me just point out that I firmly believe the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a tragedy the world will never and should never forget. But I think what people are forgetting is that a war is a war. Tragedies happen. I would also like to ask people who do not agree with me that the bombings were justified is this: **What was the alternative**??? Japan had refused several offers of white peace by the United States, even when it was clear to both sides Japan would lose in a matter of time. It took forever for the U.S. to invade islands such as guam and midway because the Japanese armed forces chose to perish instead of surrender. The Japanese government had trained their civilians to fight to the death should they ever be invaded - and the U.S. was already conducting massive bombings similar to Dresden on Japan, which in total killed MORE lives than the atomic bombs. (and they STILL refused to surrender.) Imagine a massive invasion of japan. It would have killed MILLIONS on both sides. While I understand how horrible it is to try to "justify" nuking a civilian population, I think the opposing side is naive into thinking the mighty Japanese Empire would have quietly and peacefully went into that "good night." No, that's a fools belief- they would have fought to the death, just as they had in guam and okinawa. More lives would have been lost...More. And I think, quite frankly, you are a cruel human being to think you would have preferred more people die to end a war then less.

  • Watch World at War Documentary

    The Japanese peace party were already trying to surrender as it was and the Russians had invaded Manchuria. The bomb didn't need to be dropped because peace would have been inevitable. The aggressive leaders were already outnumbered by the ones that wanted peace with the allies and the emperor was willing to surrender.

  • What better option did we have?

    The Japanese would would not have stopped. The Military was still in power and they would have made everyone fight to the last man regardless of the cost of human lives and supplies.
    An attack on the mainland would have cost us many more lives and the Pacific war would have dragged on much longer probably till 1947.
    It's a moral dilemma where both means of attack come at a great cost in human lives.
    USA/Allied strength was projected to be 6,000,000 troops consisting of more than 5,000,000 US soldiers and 1,000,000 British soldiers

    And Japanese strength was projected to be 35,885,500 troops consisting of 4,335,500 military, and 31,550,000 civilian conscripts.

    In no way would we be away to victory without a colossal casualty list.

    The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki listed 129,000–226,000+ killed
    The projected casualty list of lives lost on both sides for the invasion of the Japanese homeland would be monumentally higher than this as it was projected that Allied losses within just the first 60 days of invading the Island Of Kyushu was 60,000.
    To put it in perspective the US had already lost 74,239 throughout the entire Pacific campaign after Okinawa.

  • Yes, the Japanese would not give up fighting

    The Japanese would have continued to fight for the honor of the emperor so if we didn't use the bomb, they would have continued fighting, so more people would have died. The japon would have continue to fi fight for the honor of the emperor . If we dint se the bomb they would have died continued have died on both side a invasion of Japanese.

  • They deserve it

    Japan attacked united states first so why we can not hit them back and and japan did not want to stop fighting so the only way they can give up is if we attack them. We have something different something that is going to scare them to keep fighting, which is the atomic bomb, the most powerful bomb in the world.

  • Yes we should have used the atomic bomb on japan.

    The japanese deserved to be bombed because we didnt want to fight but they didnt care. The japanese didnt wanted to stop because they said that they wont give up fighting so the bomb was the only solution to control them and make them do what we want. Japanese would commit suicide that was very stupid so i think we should have used the atomic bomb on japan

  • If we didn't dropped the bomb then the Japanese would not give up fighting.

    The Japanese would not give up fighting, so there will be killing people on both sides, if we didn't use the bomb. If we didn't use the bomb then they will be more Japanese people killed, like when the U.S bombed Tokyo and killed 100,000 Japanese. The War will end faster if we used the bomb. When the U.S used the two atomic bombs, the war ended.

  • What was the alternative?

    Japan kept refusing peace offers from the U.S., even when it was clear to both sides that Japanese defeat was inevitable. Even after the U.S. were bombing cities like Dresden (which killed even more people than the bombs, btw) they still refused. You could already tell what a full scale invasion of japan was going to be like from the battles for guam and okinawa. There, Japanese armed forces took MONTHS to defeat, even in the face of inevitable loss, because they would not give in to surrender. Now imagine a full scale invasion of the homeland. While the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki were a tragedy, and even bigger tragedy would have been an invasion of japan

  • I get why but no..

    Defending this is on the levels of (actually further) defending the bombings of London, Tokyo, or Dresden, etc.
    civilian targeted attacks are "effective", historically, but was never done on the same level in ww2. They destroyed generations, and im just talking about the initial bombings alone. The atomic bomb's effect on offspring, and fertility is just icing on the cake. And alot of icing as well.

    Anyone who really thought the Japanese were this militant nation, that would die to the last man, is completely blind and bought into the propaganda of the time. Since 50 years before, America liked Japan, and wanted to "civilize" it. Though it kinda worked, just not in the same way of colonization, us and Japanese relations were good considering the racism. "honorary whites" ! The world allowed them to be.
    And then, once they were to fight against each other, they are these savage beasts that know nothing, from right and wrong, so the US must put down the Hammer of Justice to teach them. Right? Thats how the story goes?
    And yea these propaganda have existed forever, England and Germany hated each other and propagated hate towards each other as well, but that doesn't really make it right does it?

    I understand Victor's Justice, but for once, taking back the pride behind winning a war, how is killing and ruining millions of lives, both from the impact and the generations to come, a Just way of handling a war. :P

  • No it should not

    No because then know one would be able to go there and the army of Japan was not in 1 place and all of the innocent people would have died for no reason. Japan was losing any way so it would not of made a difference in what happened :)

  • It Was Not Necessary

    I believe that the nuclear bombing of Japan was not necessary because what allowed Imperial Japan to produce muntions was their industrial bases in northern China. So when the Soviet Union invaded northern China as was agreed at the Yalta conference they quickly destroyed Japans factories. This prevented Japan from being able to resist to any signifigant degree. The US knew about the Soviets attack and could of waited before the Japanese military would crumble instead of striking Japanese cities. I would argue that a major reason that President Truman ordered the bombing was an attempt to scare Stalin and prevent him seizing entire European countries and the Korean peninsula.
    As such I would argue it was not justified or necessary to use nuclear weapons on Japan.

  • There was an alternative.

    The U.S. really had no right to drop the A-bombs on Japan on the first place. I can understand why it feels necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they bombed the Pearl Harbor and they refused peace negotiations. But, there are other places in Japan that are near Tokyo and have no signs of living people. We are mass murders for killing innocent citizens. Nobody should feel like we should avenge American lives by doing the exact thing of what Japan did. In fact, I believe Japan had it worse because we wiped out two cities. I support showing Japan our bombing powers, but I don't support killing innocent civilians.

  • Ethen Saenz Says No

    Us had some reasons to bomb japan but They still should not have. First of all Japan had no way of defending themselves. It was not a fair fight. Also when they attacked pearl harbor they used planes and guns we could have stood a chance. A atomic bomb vs a attack doesn't seem fair. A lot of innocent people died on that day and many in the upcoming month but I agree with The us not bombing japan. ES

  • We should not have used the atomic bomb on innocent people!!!

    U.S had a plan to attack Japan. U.S should not have used the bomb against Japanese because Japan did not have that kind of heavy weapons, also Japanese would have fought with sticks so it was not fair to use the bomb when Japanese did not have those weapons. I personally think that U.S should have waited because Japanese were running out sources Japanese would have given up.

  • We should have waited a little longer to see if japan would servender

    There was a plan to attack japan with the nuclear bomb. Even though the knew japan did not have atomic bombs. So US should have not attacked someone who does not have an atomic bomb and innocent people. Japan might be willing o surrender before invasion had occurred by the US, so even though japan have an honor for the empire and would've " fought with stick" but they said they would've surrender and end the war

  • U.S should have waited a little longer

    I do not sane that are thrown the atomic bomb because Eintein not want that purpose for the pump , plus thousands of kosher dying in a war they did not want but they lived for their country , many orphans and widows had to spend time difficult things a person never should spend intentasr US should solve the problems with peace agreements.

    Besides that after the bombs had demaciadas deformations and had to kill thousands of these people , with the floor and thousands of destroyed cities .

  • The Japanese might gave up before we drop the bomb in world war ll.

    The Japanese were already losing things like we already stopped 85 percent of their oil, so they couldn't use their airplanes or boats. The United States could've waited until the Japanese lost all their food, So The Japanese would've given up. Therefore, It was not necessary to drop the bomb.

  • It was used to show military might to the USSR. And to get revenge for pearl Harbor.

    1. Truman is noted for stating in his diary that the war between japan and the USA could have ended when the USA intercepted a message regrading their surrender under certain conditions. He refused because he wanted to get revenge for pearl harbor.

    2. USA military leaders stated that the invasion of the pacfic would have not caused the reported million lives and was more likely around to number in the thousands.

    3. Truman meant with stalin and told him that he had a weapon of mass destruction before the bombing. Then shortly after the the bomb was dropped to show strength of the USA.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
shalal12 says2015-05-06T20:12:09.840
It was a shame for U.S to kill so many defend less people. I just wonder how Americans talk about human rights!
Vox_Veritas says2015-05-06T20:47:40.817