Did America have the right use Nuclear weapons to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki after truce was being drawn up?

Question

this posted in the is the light of the resounding no against Iran having the right to frre energy.. The real reason for splitting of the atom was Tesla and Einsteins dream for free energy to replace the burning of oil.. But the US decided to create the biggest act of 'Terrorism' the world ever witnessed!

Answer 1

There was no truce being drawn up, that's a myth perpetuated by revisionist historians who choose to insert their own version of history in place of the real one.  I suppose you think it would have been better to invade Japan and lose millions of lives on each side.  How would that have been a better alternative?

Answer 2

Seems like whoever has the biggest weapon gets to decide if they have the right to use it.  The justification I always heard was that the bomb was used to save all the allied lives that would have been lost had the war been allowed to drag on and on.  I have also heard that the Japanese had already indicated they were ready to surrender and the the bomb was unnecessary and excessive.  I don't know if that is true.  I have also heard that bombing Japan was a demonstration of power for the benefit of the Russians who were becoming unfriendly.  I've talked to a lot of people including some Japanese who think the use of the bomb was justified and others who agree with you that it was an unwarranted act of terrorism.  If you can get people to agree on that see if you can get them to agree on whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  That should be easy since it's so much more recent.

Answer 3

did we have the right? yes.  There is no rules in war.  Should we have? No.  The war most likely would have ended.  But on the other hand, it might now have ended.

Answer 4

Some sort of retaliation was necessary, but no, nuclear weapon should not have been used.

Answer 5

I wonder were people like you really get your education....

Japan was given several chances to surrender unconditionally most notably after the Potsdam Conference inwhich President Truman warned Japan to surrender or face their utter destruction.  This was July 26, 1945 a full 11 days prior before the first A-bomb was dropped.  Even after the first bomb was dropped Japan did not surrender.  It took a second one.

You say a truce was being drawn up.  Really I would love to see the proof of this since Japan had to know it was defeated.  It had lost every battle in the last three years of the war and knew the American military might was knocking on their door step, yet they still did not surrender.

As for the creation of the A-Bomb perhaps you missed the part where Einstein and several other German scientists warned the US that Germany was trying to develop the technology for their use.  Perhaps just maybe that was one of the reasons the USA starting in research of the bomb.

As for the posters who keep saying both Cities were just civilian targets, you really need to learn history.  Both cities had huge industrial areas for manufacturing materials for war.  Both were largly untouched by convential bombing.  Lastly  Nagasaki was a secondary target, not the primary one on the 9th.  Also more civilians were killed in the fire bombings of Japans major cities.  These fire bombings cause as much destruction if not more that the A-Bombs.

If the A-bombs were not used to force the surrendor the other choice was Operation Downfall, which was the planned invasion of the Japanese mainland.

Answer 6

No "truce" was being drawn up that anyone in the U.S. knew about.  I don't think that one was drawn up in Japan either!  IF you bothered to study the history instead of just trying to come up with a "American is Evil" theme. YOU would see that even after the first bomb was detonated that some military leaders tried to take over the government and KILL the Emperor in order to keep him from surrendering.  Try again, you will get the Kool-aide drinkers to follow you.... or maybe the Obama supporters.

Answer 7

Where the h**l do you people GET YOUR VERSION OF HISTORY?  There is NOTHING IN YOUR QUESTION that is ever NEAR being CORRECT.  You obviously DON'T KNOW c**p about the Atomic Bomb.

For one thing Nicoli Tesla DIED on 7 JANUARY 1943... at a time when the atomic bomb WAS STILL BEING BUILT and completely UNPROVEN TO WORK.  For another thing Einstein DID HIS BEST to keep the bomb from being USED.

Why do you idiots dream this c**p up and then post it as if it's REAL.. and then you go to another site and quote you original WRONG material to prove it's 'authentic'

You need to LEARN ABOUT THE MANHATTAN PROJECT and read about the SECOND WORLD WAR before you go spouting your idiotic nonsense as if it's REAL... because YOU ARE WRONG... COMPLETELY WRONG... ON ALL YOU SUPPOSED 'POINTS'.

Answer 8

Emperor Hirohito of Japan stated in a speech towards the end of the war that surrender was out of the question and should not be considered by any one of the Japanese nation. Any one considering surrender was a dishonourable coward.

Japan could have been brought to it's knees using conventional weapons only, but the war would have dragged on and on costing many lives, as a Japanese insurgency fought needlessly on. Much like the situation  in Afghanistan and Iraq today.

The nuclear option was considerd to be the most effective, even after one bomb dropped, surrender was refused. It was only after a second bomb that Japan dropped it's sword.

When a desperate disease like fanatasism poisons a nation, then only desperate remedies can be used to cure it.

Answer 9

It was not terrorism, it was open, declared war. It was combat on a scale the world had never seen, and has not seen since. And while the original pipe dream of the scientists was atomic energy, they were fully supportive of the bomb project because they knew the Germans were after it and wanted to make sure the US got it first.

And while Iran does have the right to nuclear generated electricity, that can be accomplished without producing weapon grade materials. So for them to insist on pursuing that kind of research in the face of international pressure shows they are not simply after "free energy".

And there was no truce in the works when the bombs were dropped on Japan. The US offered one, the Japanese never responded, not even after the first bomb. Also, don't forget that the ongoing conventional bombing campaign killed many more people than the A-bombs, that was the nature of warfare at the time.

Answer 10

Either way, the losses were going to be horrendous. An invasion of Japan, would have eventually succeded, but the Japanese would have never surrendered. They refused to surrender and fought to their dying breath in Alaska, what would they do in Japan? 300,000 Americans would have died(from the inital invasion, not including gurellia war) and many, many more Japanese. So in the long run, it proved to be the least bloody way to end the war.

Answer 11

There was no truce drawn up at all. Japan refused to surrender and said they would fight to the death. They deserved these Atomic bombs that were dropped on them for the destruction of Pearl harbour and the thousands of American Sailors who died in an attack with no declaration of war, They were also guilty of war crimes against humanity. Killing innocent men, women, and children. They attacked China and slaughtered people in the streets of Nang Kink, by chasing them and beheading them in the streets. This was famously known as The Rape of Nan King, NMy Uncle died in a Japanese POW camp after suffering starvation and Beatings with Bamboo poles, then hung up outside for 3 days before he died. They did deserve to have those bombs dropped on them and another half dozen.

Answer 12

It was an absolutely terrible thing to do. About 100,000 innocent people died and many more suffered horrific and life-changing injuries that would make them better off dead. They say they prevented even more deaths, but that's not true. Germany were out of the war. It was only a matter of time before Japan followed.

Answer 13

1 - There was no truce.

2 - The Nuke saved thousands of lives that would have been lost during an invasion of Japan.

3 - There were more civilians killed during conventional bombings of cities such as Dresden.

4 - As for terrorism, that is exactly what the intent was!  Terrify the Japanese into surrendering - which they did.

5 - Iran will get nuked as soon as they come close to developing a bomb.  They won't get a chance to have their own "Pearl Harbor"!

Answer 14

Oh, baloney!

First, there was no "truce" being drawn up between the Allies and the Japanese at the time of the dropping of the bomb.  In fact, there was a military coup to force the war to go on after Hiroshima.

Second, how was the atomic bombing of two cities any different than the fire bombing of Tokyo?  More people died in the fire bombing than in either of the atomic blasts.

Third, Japan and Germany (for whom the bombs were oringinally intended) both employed similar city-bombings throughout the war.  The concept of total war made civilian war workers legitimate targets of war (whatever we think of that idea now, it was nearly universally accepted then), and both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had major military targets within them, as well.

You posit that the reason for the splitting of the atom was to create free energy, and you have a grain of truth there, but the reason Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt about it was the fear that Germany would find a way to do it first and then use that technology to build destructive weapons.  

If you want to argue that Iran has the right to nuclear energy (and I guess they do) and that they would not use that capacity to build nuclear arms (which I think is clearly false), then argue that point.  The dropping of the atomic bombs was an effort to save the lives of several hundred thousand American combat troops in the planned invasion of Japan.  It was simply a more expedient method of destroying Japanese cities with the intent of forcing Japan to surrender.  It worked.

Answer 15

No, they did not have the right to drop the bombs on civilian-populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Many supporters of the bombings claim that it was necessary because it was partly in retaliation of the bombings at Pearl Harbor. However, the Japanese targeted Pearl Harbor because it was a military base. The Americans targeted two civilian cities. Needless to say, the bombings were immoral. Roosevelt's decision can be mirrored in Kaiser Wilhelm II's account of his duty to bring World War I to a swift end-"everything must be put to fire and sword; men, women and children and old men must be slaughtered and not a tree or house be left standing."

Also, it has been proven that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender, making the bombings militarily unnecessary.

Hope that helps :)

Answer 16

Some knew of the Japanese "peace feelers", others did not. Given the decisions and the forces pushing and pulling the situation at the time, the fact that a Russian invasion of Northern Japan was imminent, that Siapan and Okinawa did leave high casualty rates, the decision to use the bomb is understandable.

Now let us discuss the concept of "total war" ... the idea of winning the war is essential. It is absolute. If we fail we die. There are no substitutes.

Civilians at the beginning of war are always held in high esteem, except in "total war." When the "chips" are down and atrocities are encountered, the game and the rules change. War is not a static event. Both morally and strategically.

In a war, there are so many questionable things done... Where was the morality in the bombing of Coventry, or the bombing of Dresden, or the Bataan death march, or the Rape of Nanking, or the bombing of Pearl Harbor?"

If you have a weapon, and you are fighting for survival, you will tend to use it. Only later are you judged for the consequences of your actions.

At the time, a total war was underway, no 39th parallel, no line in the sand or air space to be denied us....some information was known, other information was filtered or unknown. Various groups were racing to influence decision makers to ensure that the bomb was used (eg. Groves), others were racing to prevent the bomb from being used (eg. Szilard, Einstein).

Answer 17

dude...Einsteins wrote a letter to FDR asking him to work on nuclear weapon to beat n**i-Germany to the atomic bomb.

So if producing the bomb was the biggest act of 'Terrorism' even though you're retarded and don't know what terrorism means, it mean Einsteins is the biggest 'Terrorist' in the world.

Answer 18

I think it's all to easy to sit back and judge what the Americans did over 60 years ago! yes it was horrible with all the innocent people who died but the choice was that or an invasion of Mainland japan which may have kill just as many civilians and god knows how many Soldiers. In the End by our standards it was wrong but after years of war and suffering that we cannot even imagine it was probably the right thing to do.......

Answer 19

Always these loaded questions come up to denigrate America , without stating the facts that are well documented , Fact one if America had directly tried to take Japan it would have cost the lives of millions many from mass suicide and more American soldiers than the total lose of life for both bombs . fact two Japan was offered surrender terms after the first atomic bomb and refused , And for the other answer trying to offset Japanese war crimes by stating  they used British and Dutch methods , At no time did the British bayonet soldiers being forced marched or nail them to crosses or chop there heads of with a sword or refuse medication or starve soldiers to death . The ordinary Japanese soldier knew little or nothing about the Bushido code or cared , but there atrocities were not corrected or punished by there officers , Nor was it frowned upon by there ruling class . The Japanese were the arbiter of there own ambitions and responsible for the destruction bought upon themselves . Remember this it was not  America that  attacked Japan by stealth and kill there people without warning . What the h**l did you people expect America to do roll over and surrender . And to state the terrible things that happen in a war to create revolution ,is a shabby trick , when you start a war with destruction you must be prepared for the consequences. And i am not an American just an historian

Answer 20

Yes absolutely.

Japan started the war.  The US had 300,000 dead in WWII. Invading Japan would have cost another 100,000.

Considering the Japanese slaughtered 10 million Chinese prior to and during the war, the bomb was totally justified!

Answer 21

Whose version of history have you been studying?  A "Truce?"  There was no truce.  Tojo was telling the people to fight to the very last man, woman and child.  You seem to forget that more "innocent civilians" died in the night time, incindiary bombing of Tokyo.  But then, that took an entire fleet of B-29s.  More people also died in the same type bombing of Bremen, Dresden and Colone.  The U.S. was simply looking at the death tolls from battles like Stalingrad (over 395,000 Russians alone) and not wishing to have a repeat of history unnecessarily.

As for your comments on Iran.  They have absolutely no bearing on today.  Iran sponsors terrorism - both in Iraq as well as Lebanon and Israel.  Their government is not of sound mind and is supposedly not at war with anyone -- yet they are funneling weapons and money to "innocent civilians" so that they may conduct warfare by proxy.  Perhaps if Iran's government would stop hiding behind the skirts of women and be truthful about what they are doing.  If their intentions were purely peaceful there would be no problem.  But their actions and words say otherwise.