Opinion Question
Posted by:

Yes, it was necessary to stop the war.

  The atomic bomb on Hiroshima was brutal, yes. On the other hand, it was the only way to stop the war. Japan was going to invade the U.S. and we were running out of supplies, people, guns, bullets, etc. It was either the bomb or lose the war. World War II was the fight for humanity, if Hitler won (not to be taken offensively) the world would have gone to hell.
Anonymous says2013-03-05T03:06:22.133
Japan announced after the first bomb that it was defeated and would retreat, why the use for the second bomb?
Anonymous says2013-03-15T18:53:51.517
That's not true at all, I study many subjects including World War 2 and if anything, the Japanese were about to submit. Many of their cities were destroyed and firebombed and we had almost all of the allied countries. Make sure you know what you're talking about before you go telling people stuff that isn't legit.
Anonymous says2013-03-18T00:59:56.503
Dropping an atomic bomb isn't fair. Thats bullcrap !!!
Anonymous says2013-04-05T13:32:52.370
...Japan was going to invade the US?
Anonymous says2013-04-22T22:34:15.510
Japan was on the defensive, there was zero possibility of them invading the U.S.
Anonymous says2013-04-23T10:59:58.973
That was completely not true. The Japanese were the ones running out of every kind of resources...In the very end, some of their aircrafts were even made out of wood.
Anonymous says2013-05-02T03:20:19.780
That claim was so incorrect. It was actually the opposite. America was getting ready to invade Japan and Japan was running out of supplies, not the U.S.A.
Anonymous says2013-05-21T00:35:11.357
The British used wooden aircraft that were great... Just look at the mosquito ground attack aircraft
CaViCcHi says2014-03-10T23:34:44.413
I'm sure you read this in the George Bush library...
Azumichan says2014-03-28T19:24:40.617
I am 100% American, but there are times that I'm embarrassed to be one. Japan was ready to surrender by the Hiroshima bombing, which led to the number of casualties of about 150,000 innocent civilians. Still, America decided to drop another one on Nagasaki. I should also note Groves was planning to drop 7 more if "necessary".

Sometimes, the actions of our "honorable" presidents makes me disgusted (not all, just some. President Garfield, for example seems to be a perfectly decent guy from the biography I read on him.) The "honorable" President Truman once stated, "I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb ... It is an awful responsibility which has come to us ... We thank God that it has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it in His ways and for His purposes." (President Harry S. Truman, August 9, 1945)
Excuse my cursing, but that is complete b.S.

I should also note some statements made by the people/military actually involved first hand on the bombings. 'General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war." ' (The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 3) )

Some historians had made helpful statements.

Edwin P. Hoyt (in 1986) has proven the myth that "the atomic bomb caused the surrender of Japan" false in "Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict", he explained:

"The fact is that as far as the Japanese militarists were concerned, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of 3,100,000 homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million of them. It was the ruthless firebombing, and Hirohito's realization that if necessary the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day."

Overall, I hope you understand that human lives are valuable and can't be thrown away like unneeded garbage.
emz655 says2014-05-04T16:01:47.723
Can I just point out, Japan was not going to invade America in fact, Japan was surrounded by Commonwealth troops that were debating whether or not to invade them. Also, as America had only just got involved in the war (after the suprise attack on Pearl Harbour) they were not short of ammunition or men at all.
Furthermore, the war in Europe was mainly over and Hitler had already taken his own life, it was only Japan and the USSR that were still fighting and that was in Asia.
Although I agree that 'lives are valuable and can't be thrown away like unneeded garbage' I do think that in order to save many more people had the war continued, the first bomb was necessary, however as Japan was seeking peace after the first bomb, the second bomb on Nagasaki was definatly not required to win the war.
admurphy02 says2015-03-02T18:21:59.453
Japan was not to attack the USA. They just lost almost their entire navy. In invasion the USA is impossible without a functional navy fleet. Allies could invade Japan or drop atomic bombs. Invasion would cost an estimated 1.5 million USA troop causalities. Rather than dropping 2 atomic bombs and Japan's surrender. Estimated 22 million Japanese civilian causalities in the invasion. In the long run, this saved about 23 million lives.
admurphy02 says2015-03-02T18:22:35.490
Credit to my friend we worked on this together
StevensSA says2015-12-07T22:24:14.233
As mentioned above...The United States was close to winning the war through conventional means. Some historians have agrued (convincingly) that the dropping of the atomic bomb was more a
Demonstration of destruction aimed at a red army the the United States was growing concerned with.
Altoria says2016-03-18T00:12:35.353
The Generals all agreed that Japan was going to surrender to the firebombs anyway.
And they weren't gonna invade USA. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT
Evildrpepper24 says2016-05-16T20:58:16.190
"War doesn't determine who is right, it determines who left!" That famous quote stays true to it's name and so does war, I agree it was justified because clearly they barely had anyone left!!! XD
seas04 says2017-05-31T01:49:55.757
Writings... Talks, words, thats how you solve war, you don't have to win war, preferible to stop it, but ego is what made the U.S drop it!!
But you weren't as biased, congrats to that, you tried not to be
seas04 says2017-05-31T01:50:06.160
Writings... Talks, words, thats how you solve war, you don't have to win war, preferible to stop it, but ego is what made the U.S drop it!!
But you weren't as biased, congrats to that, you tried not to be.
Hamsterking says2017-12-15T17:07:39.067
Ur all gay
osia1974 says2018-05-08T13:19:15.323
Losing the war in 1945 was not even a remote possibility. The US had infinite supply of the machinery of war. The only limit to the US war machine has been and coninues to be the will of the American people.
bosco3202 says2018-12-19T20:43:59.457
A) not running out of supplies
b)the Japs couldn't have invaded the US
c) words don't stop bullets @seas04
jeffrey1667 says2019-04-15T18:07:07.400
I agree it was justified, But the Japanese were never going to invade us in 1945. They were already on there last legs, But were defending their country to their last breath.
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)