Do you feel the use of the atomic bomb in world war two was the proper thing to do?

Question

Why do you think it was wrong or right. Keep in mind our fire bombing raids killed over a million. The atomic bombs killed about 350,000

Answer 1

It was the only way to make the Japanese lose there "never quit, never die" attitude.

Answer 2

I don't think we had to drop two bombs on two civilian targets.  

Why not demonstrate the incredible power of the bomb on an uninhabited island and then tell the Japanese to surrender immediately or we drop another one on a populated target?  The United States remains the only country ever to use an atomic bomb against an enemy.

Answer 3

At the time, I think it was the right thing to do - much as I hate to say it.  I don't think the Japanese would have stopped, and many more people on both sides would have died without the atomic bombs.

I had family who were killed in WWII.  If you've never been in combat or war, you can't know how horrible it is.  It affects you forever.

Without those bombs, I don't think any of my family that were stationed in the Pacific would have survived.

Having said the above, I pray those bombs are never, ever used again - ever.  There is just no good answer to this question, IMHO.

Answer 4

it was the only way to end w ii without incurring how many american death's,if we had invaded japan. if we hadn't used the atomic bomb, can you begin to imagine how much longer the war would have dragged on. some historians have said we would have been lucky to end the war by 1949. remember, the japanese would have had home field advantage. then there's the who bombed who first scenario...as one person put it, "we were chillin' in hawaii, when we were bombed." yes, it was the correct thing to do.

Answer 5

The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a reasonable decision based on the limits of wisdom and of time and place. Any debate would have to take into account many known and unknown factors. As always where you stand determines your opinion. The GI waiting for the invasion of Japan had a different viewpoint compared to the politicians or acedemics. One important question: Did the Enola g*y and the dropping of the atomic bomb save lives? My opinion is that it did and was a difficult and correct decision.

Some evidence to consider:

1. Japanese life - including civilian life - was cheap, and some American leaders and many rank and file citizens may have been in favor of punishing the Japanese with the A-Bomb.

2. The Japanese refused to accept defeat and surrender. They could have avoided "punishment" if they accepted surrender earlier. If there was a villain; it was the Japanese leadership that started the war in Asia and stubbornly refused to end it.

3. American wartime leaders Eisenhower and Leahy argued that surrender could have been secured without the use of atomic bombs. Was surrender near or far by early to mid-august? Japanese thoughts: Planning a defense of the main island in the fall. Japanese decision was to fight to the death and never surrender..

4 American decision makers could not know for certain what it would take to achieve unconditional surrender from a nation that was fighting to the death..

5. The goal of war is to defeat the enemy and end the war as soon as possible. Even if the war is doing well for your side is it not the responsibility of war leader to continue fighting and not to stop until you hear from the enemy?

6. The Japanese cabinet that met on 9 August 1945 to decide whether to accept the Allied terms for surrender was locked in stalemate.

7. After two atomic bombs had killed more than 100,000 Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus the Soviet Union's entry into the war against Japan, half of the Japanese cabinet opposed surrender.

8. Major differences: Premier Suzuki Kantaro & Foreign Minister Togo Shijenori reported to the emperor on 9 August that a decision favorable to the termination of the war could not be expected. Naval Chief of Staff Toyoda Soemu insisted that he did not believe Japan would be "positively defeated." Army Chief of Staff Umezu Yoshijiro argued that ultimate victory was not certain, the Army was capable of one more campaign. The emperor decided to end the war.

9. Although Japan was defeated militarily it was not ready to surrender. (Historian Robert Butow notes that as late as 30 July, Japans response to Potsdam Proclamation was silence.

10. If the Japanese leadership was ready to surrender and participate in a political formula for surrender why did they not communicate this to the Allies? They were not in agreement?

It is true that the U.S. intercepted information that Japan was trying to come to terms with surrender but they were not willing to stop fighting and killing. If Americans suddenly slowed down the pace of the war and affected a surrender through negotiation and a possible invasion would this have increased Japanese aggression and the loss of American & Japanese lives? If Americans waited would Chinese, Koreans, Russians, Southeast Asians continue to die in large numbers.

In my opinion the decision to use the atomic bomb was correct and saved many lives. A most diffucult decision, proper in terms of time, place and what wisdom was available to the decision makers.  We have the hindsight of 60 years living with the black cloud of nuclear holocaust, clouding our every judgement or political opinion on those August 1945 days, those at the time did not have that burden.

Answer 6

I think it was the right thing to do.  Not that I think using atomic bombs are the thing to do but we had to.  Japan attacked us on our soil and we needed to tell them we were not pushovers and that we were not afraid of them.  If we had not done that, I don't know how much more time the war would have lasted.  

It also showed the world that we are still a powerhouse country and when provoked, we will fight.

Answer 7

No it wasn't

Answer 8

Its in the middle it showed the japenese that there not going to fight to the last drop of blood because there families might die but they killed so many innocent people they should of just attacked the japenese army really badly

Answer 9

More Japanese people would have died had the US invaded Japan using conventional weapons.

The real question is why they chose to attack cities rather than destroying, say, an isolated military base as a demonstration of the bomb's power. One significant factor may be that Eisenhower knew that the USSR was about to declare war on Japan. That would mean that the USSR would have a say in the reconstruction of Japan after the war, and might try to claim a part of it as they had done with Eastern Europe. Eisenhower wanted a post-war Japan that was friendly to America, so it was necessary to shock them into surrendering as soon as possible.

Answer 10

made the japanese think twice about continuing to figh so i suppose it wrapped up WWII. Who knows how long more it would have gone on!!!!!!!!

Answer 11

I think your numbers are a bit off. The two atomic bombs probably killed about 200,000, and the M69 (the little "pipe bomb" filled with napalm) had over 20% of the population of Japan homeless before the end of the war, with  a substantial increase in its use planned for September 1945. At any rate, the Japanese killed more people (mostly Chinese) with swords and bayonets in a good month than they lost from the atomic bombings, so I don't see a problem with its use.

Answer 12

Yes, I do.  I know both the bombings (and the incendiary bombings earlier) were terrible, but the aim was to force the Japanese to surrender, and the two atomic bombs, though horrific, may have ironically saved millions of Japanese lives, not to mention the obvious savings of life on the side of the Allied servicemen who would have shortly been invading Japan.  

It's also worth noting that we dropped leaflets on Japan after Hiroshima, claiming that we could continue to drop bombs until there were no cities left.  This bluff may be why the Emperor finally called it quits.  Of course, there was actually a military coup effort to prevent him from surrendering after the first bomb was dropped, but after the second, it became clear.  One city is one thing, but the idea that, without risking more than a couple of bomber crews at a time, the US could blast every city in Japan to smoking rubble certainly had a profound impact on the final decision to surrender.  The fact was that the US had expended both of its ready bombs and had only one more (partially assembled) on Tinian which was to be used in the invasion landings.  The bluff of further bombings probably doesn't get the attention it deserves.

Some have argued that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets, but both had significant military targets imbedded in them.  Given the altitude of the bombings and the threat to the air crews, the only difference between attacking those targets with atomic bombs and attacking with cnventional ones would have been how long the bombing (and thus the war) lasted, and how many allied airmen died in the effort.  Others have argued that the bomb should have been demonstrated somehow to the Japanese.  While I understand the sentiment, there are a couple of problems.  The mechanism had been tested only once, and while that test was successful, a failed run in a demonstration would have been bad.  More importantly, there was no direct communication with the Japanese.  How could one have arranged for the high officials and military officers of one's mortal enemy to be at a specific time and place.  In other words, it's a nice idea, but in practical terms, it was completely unworkable.  Besides which, those targets (such as the headquarters of the army which was going to be defending the Southern Island against the coming allied invasion, and the Mitsubishi aircraft factory manufacturing airplanes to be used in kamikaze attacks against the invasion fleets) would still have had to been hit at considerable risk to thousands of American airmen.

Answer 13

In order to teach a mad dog how to play by the rules, you must break his legs.  That's exactly what the USA did and it was the most perfect time to do it.  Japan raped and killed millions of innocent people that did nothing to them.