The nuclear option in ww2 was neither necessary nor expedient.

Asked by: Seeginomikata
  • Nuclear weapons were a non-factor in the actual war.

    There are many reasons for why and how the bombs were dropped. The most common being that it sped up the surrender.

    I disagree with this view for two reasons:

    1. While the nuclear bombings were important, they were on the whole no different from the conventional bombings on the overall war resolve of the Japanese people. The single largest deciding factor was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, that no part of their empire could be salvaged in any kind of negotiation, when the allies could just take all for themselves.

    2. An invasion of the Japanese homeland was totally implausible at best. Using the excuse of "bombings saved lives" is a bit ridiculous for many reasons.

    Japan could not continue the war favorably after losing the major sea battles of 1943. This is because control of the oceans meant that Japan no longer had access to the single most important factor that started the war in the first place - Oil. With the merchant marine being butchered by American submarines, Japan was quickly running out of the fuel it needed to direct the war. This means that even their kamikaze attacks would have had to stop very quickly after they began. Even if the invasion did somehow happen, the casualties would have been much lower than what is often speculated.

    But, first and foremost, the Japanese were not *gasp* war-crazy people hell-bent on do-or-die resistance. No matter what, Japan would have surrendered long before foreign soldiers landed on their shores. The fact is that there were virtually no occupation soldiers who were killed, and that there were no forms of resistance, organized or unorganized. Yet despite having not been invaded, nor conquered and subdued, despite retaining the vast majority of their pre-war government intact, there were no major accounts of violence on the part of the occupied people. This doesn't hold up to the narrative of fanatic resistance, unlike the Germans, who paid for every meter of their land wrested by the allies in blood.

    Contrary to what American propaganda would have us believe, the nuclear option was by no means necessary, nor even expedient. It was decidedly a non-factor in the prosecution and outcome of the war.

    Rather, the decision to use nuclear weapons was only relevant in terms of Cold War politics and the hard scientific knowledge of what such a weapon could actually do to a living city. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • 100% pure murder

    Dropping a bombs onto cities with grandmothers, children, babies, pregnant women died--and then telling those involved they are heroes---how blind this world is--they love having their ears tickled by these-2Peter 2:19-- they promise you freedom when they themselves are still slaves to corruption( depravity)
    satan truly is the ruler of this world as Jesus taught.

  • Saved perhaps millions of allied lives

    Many people think that the Japanese were on the brink of surrender when they lost Iwo Jima and Okinawa in the pacific. But they need to understand a little bit about the ideology of the Japanese at the time. The Japanese people had been convinced by their leaders that their emperor was a god, and he would lead them to victory no matter what. They were also convinced that if the US took them prisoner, we would torture them to death. Thus, these people were religiously committed to fighting and killing Americans. At the time when the US and the Soviets were contemplating a full invasion of Japan, the Japanese military was arming every man, woman, and child with any weapon they could find. It would have been a disaster invading that country, with soaring totals of both civilian dead and military dead. The nuclear option was the best option on the table.

  • It was both necessary and expedient.

    Your argument that the Japanese were not fanatical, or that they were already preparing to surrender, is false. If you're right, they surely would have surrendered before we dropped the second bomb.
    With regard to your argument that this idea is propaganda: I've seen many interviews with, and read books by, Marines who fought the Japanese and in every case they describe their enemy as fanatical, and more than willing to spend their own lives for every inch of ground won or lost.
    The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both necessary and expedient for the same reason: To spare both American and Japanese lives.

  • We can't change the past:

    It happened we can't change that, personally I think the bombs were used to force Japan to surrender before the Russians took too much territory from them.

    That and to reduce the likely-hood of the Russians deciding to start the next war before the rest of the world was ready or able to deal with them.

    What we should be worried about is their are idiots saying the world should be ready for limited nuclear war.

    People still imagine the bombings of Japan as the baseline for what nuclear weapons can do but what they fail to understand is just how powerful modern nuclear weapons have become:


  • Millions more would have died

    The use of nuclear weapons was not necessary, but was a much better option. This is because the Japanese were either willing to force every last man, woman, and child to fight or kill themselves rather than let anyone capture them. The proof of this is the Battle of Saipan. A full scale invasion would have resulted in millions of deaths while the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused about 135,000 vs millions in the case of a full-scale invasion. Adding to this, the Allies dropped millions of leaflets warning people about what would happen and advised civilians to evacuate the city for months leading up to the bombings.

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