Do you agree or dis-agree with the droping of the atomic bomb on Japan in WW2? t

Question: Do you agree or dis-agree with the droping of the atomic bomb on Japan in WW2!? tell why!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

I laugh at those who think the only reason the US dropped the bombs was to send a message to Russia!. They completely ignore facts, such as Japanese were training women and children (yes that's right training them) to fight off an Allied invasion of Japan!. Now imagine the horror of an Allied soldier (Australia, UK, USA) of having to either kill a woman or child, or be killed/see a friend killed by said woman or child!.

Now learn that the USA had a weapon that could have prevented the invasion, how would you feel!.

Instead of the question do you agree with the dropping, it would be why didn't the USA drop the bomb and save lives!.

It really is was a hard decision, but I think at the time, with the knowledge they had it was the right decision!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

mass murder isn't usually a good idea, it ended the war but I don't think it was the only course of action!.
Although I don't agree with it I can see the pragmatic reasoning behind it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Ask it hundreds thousand killed peace Japanese!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

In the end it saved millions of lives on both sides, people that would have been killed in a land invasion!. Right choice back then, IMO!.
Now, I really don't see the need for nukes anymore!. We will never use them in war again, so what's the point in having them!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

While it was a tragic two days, it did bring a decisive end to a war that cost many lives on both sides!. granted it took more lives than pearl harbor, but it saved more lives than the planned land invasions!. And yes America did have plans to occupy japan!. Besides America did a great job of reconstructing the country after the war!. The entire UN took how many years to get that Germany thing right!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

I agree!. The only other option was to invade Japan!. A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1!.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities!.

Compare that to the less than half a million total deaths as a result of the bombs!.

Someone else talks of mass murder, but ignores Japan''s unprovoked attack at Pearl Harbor and Japan's mass murder torture, and experimentation on POWs, the Chinese and Filipinos!.

Greg F seems to be ignorant of history!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Talking about practicality, I say it is agreeable!. Why!? Basically it is because the Japanese soldiers do not easily give up!. They have a code of honor when it comes to battle!. As such, they would rather die than to surrender!. With this in mind, one can think that the war will take a long time to end!. Now wars are costly!. If wars take a long time, it means that much money will be spent!. However, if it is shortened, then one can save lots of money and lives!.

Now regarding the dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan, it is agreeable ONLY in terms of practicality!. On the side of US, it is practical because such bombing will force the Japanese to back out from the war!. If they did not do it, then more lives will be lost and more money will be spent to fund the war!.

On the other hand, it is ethically unagreeable to drop the bombs in Japan!. This is a case of what is called in ethics as 'double-effect', an act that produces both good and bad effects!. It is unagreeable because one of the factors that make an act permissible is that the act must be good in itself and must not precede the evil effect!. Here, the act was not good in itself because the act itself is a form of killing, which is evil!. also, the evil effect preceded the good effect!. It may have may eventually made the Japanese surrender and more lives were saved, however, the first effect of such an act is the killing of people, including the innocent!. As such, it is an evil act and is therefore disagreeable!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

yes!. two words:pearl harborWww@QuestionHome@Com

I agreed until fairly recently!. The garbage we learn in school is hard to unlearn!.

If you look, you'll find in plain sight, Pearl Harbor was only a surprise to the soldiers and public!. Pertinent world leaders and intelligence knew in advance!.

While we're at it, 9/11 couldn't have happened the way we were told by our 'leaders' and media!. Period!.
"The melting point of steel is about 2800 degrees Fahrenheit!. Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 2000 degrees Fahrenheit!." -The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40 (yes, it's peer-reviewed)

The terrorist attack on Japanese civilians wasn't done to "save a million or more US soldiers!." It was done to send a message to Russia: 'after we combine forces to crush the Nazis; we're the new tough guy on the block!'

"The first casualty when war comes is truth!." - Hiram W Johnson, staunch isolationist to the US Senate in 1917!. Johnson, a Republican, served in the US Senate for nearly 30 years, beginning in the midst of World War I and concluding with his death in 1945, as it happens, on the same day the U!.S!. dropped its first atomic bomb on Hiroshima!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The atom bomb had less to do with winning WWII, and everything to do with setting the stage for the post-war world!. When Harry Truman was at the Potsdam, Germany Conferences, Stalin was outlining his plan for "pacification" of Europe, which he saw as meaning conquest for communism!. Stalin planned to occupy all of Europe and to install communist puppets in leadership roles!.

Harry Truman got the word at this conference that "the gadget" (the first bomb at Alamogordo test lab) had worked; the US had atomic weapons!. He decided on the spot to use the bomb against Japan to demonstrate to Japan (and the Soviets) that we had the bomb, the airplane to deliver it, and the will to use it against the major cities of our enemies!.

Stalin was forced to occupy part of Eastern Europe and half of Germany!. The US was able to keep most of Western Europe and all of Japan out of the communists hands!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes it was right becuz

1) It end the war faster, japs werent going to surrender that easily

2) An invasion would risk more lives

3) Japs were very cruel during the war, they massacre about more than 16 million civilians during the war(more than Jewish death) and theyre more crueler then the Nazi

4) You know about what the Japs did right!? Nazi at least use bullets, gas but the Japs rape, abuse, and did very painful things with their bayonets and katanas so they DESERVE ITWww@QuestionHome@Com

I agree with it!. The Japanese were tenacious defenders!. Every island battle closer to the home Islands got bloodier and bloodier!. The Japanese government was training every man woman and child to fight the invaders to the death!. Any invasion of the Home islands would have resulted in millions of casualties because the leaders would never have given up!. It took a major shock for them to finally recognize that defeat was inevitable and that it was better to quit before they were obliterated!. The A-bombs provided this shock!. That, coupled with the Russian entry into the Pacific war proved there was no way to salvage the situation!. They were facing extinction between the Russians and the Bomb!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I agree with it!. It ended the war and saved thousands of allied lives, and very possibly Japanese lives as well, since many more Japanese would have died too if the fighting had continued!.

My uncle was a prisoner of war of the Japanese, working on their foul Burma railway, and he was just about on his last legs when the war ended, if it hadn't ended when it did he would almost certainly have died, as would many, many others!.

I am watching repeats of 'Tenko' on UKTV Drama at the moment, so i am in no mood to listen to any nonsense about how dropping the bomb killed a lot of 'innocent' people!. do you think the people in the Japs' vile prison camps weren't innocent!? And did the Japs give a damn about them!? did they hell!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

This will be a "loaded" answer to try and get you to think!. After helping the Allies during the first world war in both the Mediterranean and Pacific the Japanese were relegated to mere bystanders at Versailles by Great Britain, France and the US!. By the 1930's it was unthinkable that the Japanese much less Asians should try and build an empire with colonies like France (French Indochina), Great Britain (India, Hong Kong) and the US (Philippines)!. In order to keep the "order" of things it was necessary to assert Western dominance of the region and thus drop the atomic bomb on Japan!.Www@QuestionHome@Com