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.
America was not justified in dropping the bomb. First off they had no idea how strong this bomb was or how much damage it would cause, they just decided to drop the bomb on a city filled with innocent children and people. I mean yes there had to be an end to the war but I feel like there was a better way of doing that. They could have figured out something other than blowing up Japan. There is no way that some one can honestly think that it is okay to kill thousands of innocent women, children,... People. They were all people. And the U.S. ended their lives just because they could. Innocent people didn't need to die to end the war. It just wasn't right and it wasn't necessary.
No one in their right mind would support the killing of innocent civilians on 9/11 on the basis of the argument that Osama Bin Laden and his cohort wanted to end the war between radical Islam and the U.S. So why is it acceptable for the U.S. to have incinerated tens of thousands of civilian men, women, children and babies to end the War, when there was a military alternative? The U.S. could have continued the war against the Japanese armed forces instead of targeting Japanese civilians. If the Japanese civilians who were killed are not deemed to have been innocent (although it is hard to see children and babies as anything but innocent) because they may have supported the Imperialist Japanese Government, then neither were those who died in the World Trade Centre or any Americans, because they support the U.S. Government!
Taking out thousands of civilians has to be considered a war crime. The only nation that shouldn't be allowed weapons is the US, as it is too uneducated to use them. Truman was nothing other than a brutal murderer, as were the men who dropped the bomb and the ones who supported it.
Prior to reading some of these arguments, I was honestly willing to believe that Americans were at least somewhat remorseful for the horrible crime that was the dropping of the Atomic bomb. Wow, have you people ever proven me wrong. It appears that not only do Americans believe that this disgusting act was justified, but that it was the right thing to do. You disgust me. Children, I repeat, innocent children, were butchered. Many of these children died slow, horrible deaths. I can only imagine the outrage that would come from the citizens of the United States if New York had been bombed, and instead you were the ones who had to watch the skin melt off of your children's faces. I even read one comment stating that dropping the atomic bomb was a good thing, because it allowed people to see the effects. To whomever said that, screw you, you are a despicable human being. The United States is an evil Juggernaut that uses their powerful military to rob poor, desolate countries of what little wealth and oil they have. Your nation is evil, accept it, and maybe use your voices to try and change it. Your ignorance will not stop the mass murders committed to this day in the name of American "freedom."
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!
I don't believe the USA had the right to do such a thing, they should not be able to hold the right to kill hundred of thousands of people. How many innocent civilians died at Pearl Harbor? I bet none. They were all war related one way or the other, going to war is one thing killing like that is another, I am an American and I'm horrified by how stupid all these people who are for America are.
Not only was the warning to Japan only 5 days before the bombs were dropped, there were still innocent people in Japan. USA killed over 140,000 innocent people in Japan along with 2,000,000 people killed by radiation, not even considering the people who now are deformed and linked to cancer. That's way more than the bombs at the twin towers that killed around 3,000 people. No matter if Japan was supporting Germany, there were still INNOCENT PEOPLE that were killed. And I still know that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, which had no innocent people (because they were all troops). Those people are DEAD for no reason.
The us was scared if they didnt used the bomb they wold have lose, they were showing a act of cowardness and plus in the Bible it says thou shall not kill and what did the Us did kill over thousands of innocent people that was even in the war. well i hope the people that drop the bomb got saved because if they didnt there in hell now. but i doubt they repented.
It seems to be a matter of personal philosophy. If you believe that the ends justify the means, then dropping the bomb may seem justified. However, then you seem to indicate that you do not regard an attack on civilians, regardless of the extent they are involved in the war effort, to be any different than an attack on military. A military is a fighting force who at least expects that they are putting their life on the line to serve their country, for whatever purpose that may entail. They have willingly made a commitment understanding that death is a possibility. That is their sacrifice, and we should all greatly appreciate them for that. Civilians are completely different. Their involvement in war rarely extends so far. How can you possibly consider them to be necessary to a war effort, unless you have no particular regards to whom you kill to get done what you need to get done? If that is so, then yes, you believe the ends justify the means. Just know then that you have no right to complain about any action similar to such, like 9/11. We meant to send a message to the Japanese with a bomb on their civilians. The terrorists meant to send a message to us when attacking the WTC. The message may be different, but both chose to attack civilians to get our message across. If you choose to see it differently, then it is because you are making it personal. Perhaps then you should consider how others may make what we did personal, similar to how you view what 9/11 did to us. I have not served in a military, so perhaps my viewpoint is skewed when I say this, but if I personally had to make the choice, I think I would rather continue to fight a long and hard struggle, rather than slaughter innocents. I guess it depends on whether you value the victory or integrity of the nation more.
Not only that but what evidence did the US give to proved they had such a weapon? Sure they wrote that they promised they were gonna drop an atomic bomb, but anyone can easily just write it down as a bluff. Plus the Japanese were already planning to surrender in the first place. The only reason why it took so long was because they wanted the emperor to stay in power, as well as have the imperial family protected. The emperor was just a figurehead, he had no real power, so he didn't really pose a threat. The US could have just accepted the Japanese's term of surrender, which was keeping the emperor in power. That was their only condition, which didn't really pose a threat, yet the US was dead set on their unconditional surrender.