Renewed economic success to the Japanese people. Otherwise the war would have drug on for years and caused the economic weakness of both nations with probable famine and shortages occurring in both countries as well as the loss of life and increased hate between two nations. That's hind sight. During that time I would have thought, Do I want to be under Japanese rule? No? Then drop the bomb."
Invading Japan would've killed many more lives on both sides. Plus Japan at the time was refusing to surrender despite us pressure. Even after the us softened the surrender terms Japan refused to surrender
I'm sorry, but if you want to play someone for the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, blame the Japanese government. Not only did they instigate the war by attacking America on home soil, they were allies with Hitler and the Nazis. And even when they were clearly the losers of the war, they were still killing American soldiers due to their "pride." If you were harry Truman, and you saw that your young soldiers were dying in a war that was already lost because your enemy refused to surrender, you have no choice but to drop the bomb. I hope the Japanese government explained to their citizens the nature of "pride" once these bombs exploded.
The soviet union, Germany, and Japan were all in a race to build the atomic bomb. The us chanced upon the German designs while taking Germany. It was a race to who could build the bomb first. Had Japan finished the bomb first, I highly doubt there would be a us to talk about. If you would rather move to a war torn country where the "conventional?" Fighting is on your front door step, then be my guest. Millions would have died if the war continued dragging on. Go hug a tree
The Japanese taught their children how to fight if we invaded. We would have had to kill all of the people, even the civilians which would have lead to more that one million deaths. If we had invaded, we estimated one million casualties on our side alone. By dropping the atomic bomb, we saved lives with the loss of a few. We caused more deaths from consensual bombing then the atomic bombs combined.
The Japanese were not exactly going to give up. Sure, at the very most 300,000 were killed in the bombings, but how much more would have been killed if the us had invaded the Japanese archipelago? Plenty more, perhaps in the millions, of Japanese and American soldiers would have died, and a full on land assault may have demolished most of the major cities of Japan, because that's just how war works, you don't just stop halfway and leave. The American economy would have been screwed over because of much more investments towards the war effort, and the entire image isn't pretty. ninelester37, your ignorant comment speaking, and I quote, "Americans think that that their lives are more precious than those of other nations, which is tragi?" Is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. I don't think you've heard of the rape of Nanjing, where the Japanese raided a village in China and raped the women and killed civilians. Or how Japan used Korea as a colony and effectively became an imperialist nation screwing them over. Or how they invaded Manchuria and created a large war there, that involved the suffering of many people. And I'm sure that you don't know that the Japanese considered Asian people to be racially superior than all other races, and that the Japanese are the "master race?" Of their "master race." You definitely don't know that they planned on making the Japanese empire take over all of eastern Asia since they thought that they were so much better than everyone. I'm not trying to say it's a good thing to toss bombs into nations and blow them into the stone age, because that is nothing but death. But there was no other option that would have lead to less death. Want statistics? Around 485,000 Japanese troops died against the us. Again, these are only soldiers. If the us had invaded, you could probably expect this to go up to the millions because this invasion would have taken many years and many men, across many cities, across the entire Japanese archipelago. This is not including potential civilian casualties. This is opposed to anywhere from 200,000-300,000 that died in the bombings. In a war like this a clear-cut winner needs to be established. One of us, the axis or the allies, had to be completely defeated or a surrender would have to be exercised. There was too much hatred and prejudice on both sides, allied and axis, to warrant a safe peace treaty. The Japanese would not have given up, and neither would the Americans. Don't say that Americans were being Nazi's when the Japanese have historically been just as Nazi to other east Asian countries. Ask the Chinese and the Koreans. If we had invaded, more people would have died, and at this point a peace treaty would have been impossible.
1.emperor hirohito would not surrender. He would do anything to win the war. The military leaders worshiped him and did anything he wanted them to do. 2. The atomic bomb was not targeted at civilians. During a public speech, president truman said, "i urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately and save themselves from destruction." He obviously cared about the civilian people of Japan and was strictly bombing areas with high military or industrial advantage to Japan. In truman's diary, he stated that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.(july 25, 1945)" 3. The atomic bombs killed less people and did less damage that the fire bombing raids prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs. 4. Emperor hirohito told women and children to either fight, or commit suicide because it was a this?race to their country. 5. The atomic bombs were beneficial to Japan and America because less lives were destroyed. If a land raid occurred, many Japanese lives would be destroyed, and even more American lives would be destroyed.
If you were president Truman and your previous president spent more than 4 years fighting a war, what would look like a better option? War is expensive. You would rather sit there for weeks starving the Japanese mainland spending even more money, possibly sacrificing the most men to die in one battle? Or send two planes, two bombs and end the greatest, most devastating, bloodiest, traumatic war in human history? What most people don't realize is our bombing raids amounted to more damage then a single atomic bomb did, but you don't hear anyone complain about that. On top of that, most people call Hiroshima and Nagasaki innocent cities. In fact, they were critical Japanese supply and military bases. Some parts damaged, however were part civilian, yes. It wasn't like we were meaning to aim for that area. Bombing runs were always inaccurate then, the Japanese trained for months and barely achieved a 50% hit/miss ratio on pearl harbor. Vietnam for another example, had more bombs dropped in that all of wwii. The reason, in my opinion, why this question always remains is because of what it did to the world. It shoved America into a superpower and turned the world on to nuclear energy. After that bombing, no other atomic/nuclear bomb has been detonated in an act of war, only in a test. Never used again because people learned the destruction held inside. The Cuban missile crisis was close yes, but by know all countries armed with nuclear weapons knows the stakes to launching one.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the Japanese had a war strategy hinging on the idea of sacrifice - the Japanese fought at Okinawa and Iwojima despite knowing full well that they would ultimately be pushed off the island. The Japanese demonstrated that they had no respect for the sanctity of life, even of their own citizens. Most of the arguments presented against the use of the bomb hinge on the concept that the united states could have followed diplomatic means instead of military means. The fact is, we attempted to. On July 26th, 1945, the Potsdam declaration was issued to the Japanese, requiring their immediate surrender. The document even went so far as to force the fact that we did not want to destroy or enslave the Japanese people, we simply wanted the war over in fact, the deceleration made three famous points - "we do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, . The Japanese government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of Democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established." "Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted." "the occupying forces of the allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government." We told them that unless they agreed to the potsdam declaration, and international effort with universal support, they would be visited by complete destruction and carnage. They still rejected. The loss of life of a conventional invasion into the Japanese mainland would have been several magnitudes larger than both nuclear weapons claimed, but still, the Japanese refused reason. The first bomb was dropped. After little boy was dropped, the Japanese were again given the chance to surrender, with Truman stating, "if they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware." The Japanese again refused, the emperor having no value for human life and demonstrating such in spades. It took the second bomb, a military coup, and two assassination attempts for the emperor to finally end the war. The loss of life between Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 246,000 Japanese citizens. The loss of life projected in a mainland invasion? 500,000 us citizens. The loss of life for the Japanese in such an invasion cannot be projected, as the concept of fighting to the death and the use of kamikaze as a means to an end could make the deaths range between 500,000 and the total island population. so what is more ethical? An action resulting in 260k deaths, or one resulting in a minimum of 500k deaths?
Please allow me to first state clearly that the death of even one child, one innocent civilian, even one soldier who was pressed into service against his will is one death too many. The hundreds of thousands of dead as a result of these two bombs has a horrific tragedy. However, there are some things you must keep in mind.1)we didn't ask for war with Japan, they brought it to us by invading our naval base. Since Japan "started I?" Japan is responsible for whatever consequence their people suffered as a result. 2) the idea of a D-day-style assault with water - and airborne conventional troops was carefully examined and preferred by many, specifically because of the lower risk to innocent civilians. It was determined that over 1 million us troops, minimum, would be lost in such an attempt and the entire assault was likely to fail, extending the length of the war and increasing the death toll on both sides. Had the us not dropped the bomb, far more Japanese innocent citizens would have died horrible deaths than did. Had the us not dropped the bomb, far more us innocent citizens would have died than did. Had the us not dropped the bomb, far more Japanese soldiers would have died than did. Had the us not dropped the bomb, far more us soldiers would have died than did. How in the world can anyone morally support killing millions of us soldiers and extending a war resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians on both sides, and then use as the basis of this opinion the fact that, compared to the alternative, relatively few people died.
The bombs were dropped as a direct retaliation action of the U.S.A. To the attack of pearl harbor, which is a military facility. It was USA's military naval gateway to the pacific and south east Asia. But why must the bombs dropped in the middle of civilian cities, i.e. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the majority casualties were civilians. Not to mention the long term effect the nuclear weapon has on the public health for decades. U.s.a. Was and still is the only nation that have deployed full scale nuclear attack on another nation. And now they are ironically championing the anti-nuclear campaign. To me, the bomb on Japan was far worst than the alleged holocaust during the ww2. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are the real holocaust!
Nuclear weapons shouldn't have been used on the civilians of Japan, if they were going to use bombs then they should have used the weapons on armed military. I used to think the bombing was justified to end the war and save allied lives, but I now think using weapons on unarmed civilians is wrong. It could be seen as an atrocity.
Japan was a falling nation. They were low on resources, only had their home island, and their cities were burned to crisps from the firebombing before the bomb. There was no need for invasion anyway, we should have just stopped advancing. They hit us once at pearl harbor, but not again! We hit them so hard, we pushed them across the ocean and took all of their territories. Their civilians wanted to stop, but were oppressed by the military. They were too afraid to take action, and our country knew that. The island has few natural resources, they lacked war materials such as petroleum, metals, rubber, and guns. All we had to do was wait, they would run out of material if we had waited. They say hitler murdering jews was horrible, then the dropping of not one but two atomic bombs on populated cities full of civilians not soldiers. Some people say." Who would you have sacrificed, the few or the many(the Japanese civilians or the us military)?" I say, there is a third option, just stop. They were in no position to attack anyone. Their navy, decimated, their air force, outmatched, their army/marines, too few to do much. They didn't even have any superweapons, the Nazis, v2 missiles, the us, the atomic bomb, Japan, nothing. It was like hitting a wounded deer with .50 cal. The atom bomb and invasion, just unnecessary. -my name is jared crummey, I am 12 years old and I believe that the atomic bomb was unnecessary.
Many people are misunderstanding the power of the atomic bomb. Still, to this very day, people are dying from radiation in forms of cancer and disease. Even the American government knows what they did was wrong and have tried to cover up the intensity of their actions by denying it, and undermining its severity. We fail to speak about this in classrooms and in the public in general. We are the only nation in the whole entire world who have resorted to such monstrosity. We make a big deal out of 9/11 and yes as tragic as it was, we feel a more passionate connection to this issue because it happened on our soil, hurting our people. But the atomic bomb was far worse. In fact, it is one of the most ugliest things that humans have done to one another. Shortly after the drop of the bomb, instantly hundreds of people were melted on the spot. But it is the survivors that suffered the most. Many of them have had bits and pieces of their skin melted off with no hospitals to attend to, no family, no money, absolutely nothing. Many have described it as a living hell. Maggots and insects have been known to lay eggs on their wounds. All of these details are just one hundredth of the gruesome reality of it all. To those who say "ye?" To the justification of Japan without much of a reasoning other than "because they attacked us firs?" Should read or see the movie "grave of the fireflie?" Or other forms of media on this horrendous act of humanity and educate themselves on just how much suffering was caused.
The Americans were not able to control who the bomb affected. They should never have dropped it when they couldn't control the effects. It was also wrong for them to use Japan to show Russia how strong they were.
They dropped the bomb on innocent women, children, and other citizens that were not directly involved in the war and Japanese were ready to surrender. Many people died and many became maimed for life because of the atomic bombs.
Purposely targeting civilians is never justified. The Japanese people were no more responsible for the actions of their government that we in the U.S. Are. The U.S. Killed women, children, the elderly. If Japan had done that, they would have been condemned in history forever.
To say that dropping a nuclear bomb on these two islands was a last resort and 'the only way out' is just stupid. Even the doctor who was on the Manhattan project didn't agree that we should even have nuclear weapons such as this? And in America developing this we opened other countries to the arms race and possibly the outcome of nuclear war. You could say this stupid decision could lead to another world war if someone wanted it too.
Killing people in mass numbers without even giving them a chance to defend themselves is wrong. Killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children is never acceptable.
The atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has changed Japan for ever perhaps. The amount of destruction and death that the bombs had caused is perhaps unparalleled in any other human induced destruction. Not only thousands of people died; millions were maimed for life, rendered homeless, suffered mental shocks and remained traumatized all their lives even decades afterwards. The bombs destroyed the twin cities to a mere heap of rubble and charred corpses. I guess no body of a sound mental condition will ever second this ghastly act by the Americans.