To those of you who are still upset about the bombing of Japan during WW2 I have a question?

Question

I am just wondering, hyppothetically how you would respond if you where President Truman and had decided to conduct a total invasion of Japan instead of using the atomic bomb, gaining 12 million cassualties on both sides that is written as such:

"Dear President Truman,

I am a mother of a soldier that had died in the invasion of Japan, and I understand you had a weapon that would have won the war and would have made an invasion needless which would mean that my son will still be here today..And I understand that you did not use it to prevent cassualties on the enemy's side"

I am just wondering how anyone who is against the bombing of Japan would have thought up of a way of responding to the alternative?

Answer 1

The point is that the invasion wouldn't have cost that many lives.  The expected cost of the invasion (in lives) was hyped after the war.  In fact the Japanese were already suing for peace.  We said we wanted -unconditional- surrender, but we let them keep their emperor, which was all they really wanted.

Answer 2

I do not accept your assumption of 12 million casualties.

Read Howard Zinn's People's History. There is plenty of reason to believe that Japan would have surrendered soon, and that the A-bomb was in some ways just a show of power to impress the Soviets and end the war a few months before it would have ended anyway.

Answer 3

The best way to destroy an enemy is to target its home front and end it quickly.  Once its infrastructure is damaged beyond repair, it will surrender.

The worse way to fight a war is to fight and worry about breaking the rules.  If rules work then we won't have to fight these damed wars.

Answer 4

Two words:  Pearl Harbor.