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.
There is no justification for killing innocent men women and children if we can justify killing thousands of japanese civilians is going to save americans then we should not b surprised if terrorist justify their cause and survival by killing the innocent. We have to fight injustice but not at the expense of innocent lives
Although it is true that an invasion may have killed more civilians, there surely had to be another way to end the war. It is clearly not right to kill this many people, and in the long term it is still bad, as there is still radiation in these places. There could have been another way. Apart from the test explosion, no one knew what the bomb could do.
The US was in no way justified. Not only did the bomb kill innocent civilians, but it was not necessary. Admiral Leahy (President Truman's advisor) said himself that 'Japan was already defeated' and that there was 'no reason to use the bomb'. But most appalling of all, Hiroshima was only chosen as a target because they wanted to see the full effect of the bomb. We already know that Nagasaki was the second target, but why? According to the booklet by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Nagasaki was simply an 'experiment', but an experiment that cost Japan innocent lives. The US denied any knowledge about radiation, even though it was radiation which killed 200,000 in Hiroshima. This decision was totally unnacceptable and inhumane.
On 6 August 1945, the first atomic bomb to be dropped on foreign soil was released from Enola Gay on Hiroshima, Japan. This nuclear bomb, named Little Boy was dropped as a devastating attack in an attempt to make Japan surrender, and destroyed Hiroshima as over 70,000 people were instantly killed.
When Hirohito, emperor of Japan refused to accept the United States' terms of surrender, the second atomic bomb, 'Fat Man' was dropped over Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945. Many people detested the use of the atomic bombs as the mass murder of civilians was believed to be an inhumane act. The aim of this investigation is to find out whether America's decision to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan was justified. This investigation will concisely cover the events that brought the US into the Second World War and its connections with Japan during the war before the nuclear attack. This investigation will also examine the US's decision to allow the bombs to be dropped over the cities. Content from a variety of documents, stories from those who witnessed the event, and writings from Truman's speeches and diary will help reveal if his decision to drop the atomic bombs was justified or not.
Im gunna keep it short and sweet. They were way out of line and should have found another way to end the war. But I want to and will say this, I happen to be an american. So want to inform you all that not all Americans agree with it. So please stop insulting america and its citizens because a vast majority of them do not like and are not proud of the past. So just don't go thinking that all american people are the same please.
Yes the Japanese had no right to attack us in the first place and we did have to come back harder. However 68 civilians died in pearl harbor while 140,000 civilians died because of the Atomic Bomb. No civilians should ever be touched in war but we should not have dropped them with out knowing its full strength and not caring about all the innocent people.
The bomb was not justified. I don't care if Japan started it or dropped the bomb first, be the bigger man or in this case country and just stop. Don't react. The only thing that dropping the bombs did was kill more and more innocent people. While the US sat there all fine and happy you had people in Japan starving and dying because America thought "Lets show them who the boss is and teach them a lesson." America needs to step off its high horse and do what's best for its people not the leaders. They had the choice to not do it but they still did and that is why America is hated till this day, not just by other countries but by those in this one.
"But U.S. officials chose not to test whether this intelligence was correct. Instead, Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9. Because of logistics, an invasion of Japan could not begin for another three months, so the U.S. could have waited to see if Japan would surrender before dropping the atomic bombs" (upfront 1).
The atomic bomb was necessary to end the war with Japan at the earliest possible moment. By the early summer of 1945, Japanese leaders knew they could not win. But they fought on in hopes of securing better surrender terms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/, shows you how such is evaluated. However, one may say that the Japanese would not have listened to nonviolence, unfortunately, such is not the case. People in Japan where already getting ready to surrender, nonviolent advocators in their country were trying to be peaceful, and as shown by what happened, the emperor was quite frankly leaning that way too. The reason this happened was because the military had control of not only Japan, but of America. If that money had not been spent on the bomb, and rather on nonviolent protests, it would have been an easier task for both moral and financial reasons. How much money does nonviolent protest cost? Less then 25 billion dollars I assure you.
Y dos tis wepsit sukz pecuz it wnt let me wite les tan fidy wordza a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a aa a aa a a a a a a a aa aa aSUPA SANIC FEST a a a a a a a