Do you agree with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question: Do you agree with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!?

Im 50-50!.

Nay - Killed innocent people
- Disrupted animal lives (forget the right term (ecosystem maybe!?))

Yay - Saved countless American Lives
- Ended the war

what do you think!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

I was actually alive and kicking at the time!. I had a cousin who had fought in Italy and was home on leave in August 1945!. He was being readied to participate in the land invasion of Japan, which would have been even bloodier than D-Day in Europe!.
An invasion would have cost over 100,000 American lives and perhaps several million Japanese lives!. In addition, the Russians would have invaded from Siberia and claimed their share of the goodies -- whatever was left!.
The atomic bombs made all this unnecessary, and saved a lot of lives!. So it was a good decision!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes it killed innocent people as wars often do, the fire bombing of Tokyo with conventional incendiary bombs killed even more than the two atomic bombings did in 1945!.
Yes it saved countless American lives and casualties who would have had to live severely wounded!. It saved millions of Japanese lives and allied lives too!.
First it ended the war without an invasion that would have triggered a slaughter of all allied POWs plus civilian internees - hundreds of thousands right there!.
The sudden surrender ended murderous Japanese occupation of millions of square miles of Asia where people were dying and being killed at a rate of say 200,000 a month!.
The planned invasion of Japan would take place over some months, at least into the spring of 1946!. Meanwhile the Japanese economy was wrecked -- particularly transport for both rice and coal!. The railroads were vulnerable to bombing at check points and coastal shipping halted by sea mines!. So millions would have died of exposure for lack of coal to heat their homes in the winter, lack of electrical power, proper sanitation, starvation, or the disease that these things bring!.
Then there is the killing in the two planned invasions!. If we used chemical weapons to help the invasion, estimates were of 5 million deaths!.That's not counting those shot or bombed or shelled!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Conventional bombing rendered some cities (e!.g!., Dresden) just as devestated as did the atomic bombings in Japan!. Tokyo was bombed in March 1945 with an estimated dead of around 100,000!. Nuclear or conventional - the result was the same!.

Innocent people were killed, yes - just as was the case in countless battles before the U!.S!. opened the nuclear age on 6 August 1945!. Those innocent people were warned, however; millions of leaflets were dropped in 35 major Japanese cities a week or more prior to the atomic attack!.

The atomic bombings provided the dramatic effect that was needed to break the political stalemate in Tokyo between those who were eager to surrender and those who wanted to fight to the last!. I think they helped shorten the war and, in the long run, save lives!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

With full advantage of hindsight, I agree with Teller's opinion about it (Teller, the father of the H-bomb and contributor to the A-bomb)!. He thought that the A-bomb should have been used, but it should have been exploded at a much higher altitude than the two actually were!. This would have done, "!.!.!.no more damage than shaking a few window panes!." Teller went on to say that it would have been the first time that the power of knowledge alone had ended a war!.

It would have been a terrifying display!. It would have been like a navy ship shooting over the bow of a ship at sea that it wanted to stop!.

Some of you may have doubts if Teller actually said that, or if it was actually possible!. I beg you to do your research and reconsider your opinions about the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!.

It was considered at the time!. The US military was concerned that it had only two bombs in the cupboard and it would have to wait a long time for more if that approach didn't work!.

Please try to get a handle on your emotions!. It has been 63 years!. To reconsider past actions of historical personalities is not necessarily to criticise them!. We have much more information now!. For example, if man A walked around the corner of a building and there was man B with a gun there and man A then was killed, we could say, with advantage of hindsight, that man A should not have walked around that corner!. But to criticise man A for doing that would mean that no one should ever walk around a corner!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

You seem to have fallen for the common misperception that there was something remarkably different about the bombing of those cities!. The only thing different about them than a long list of other Japanese cities is that it only took one plane per city instead of the 200 or 300 that were normally used!. In November 1941 (a couple of weeks BEFORE Pearl Harbor) George Marshall had outlined for select members of the Washington press corps the US strategy in the war against Japan: we were going to burn down her cities!. And that's exactly what we did!. I'm sure you've seen pictures of Hiroshima after the bombing!. What you probably haven't seen is that there were several other Japanese cities that looked exactly the same!.
You could also put this in your list: the Japanese had plans to repel the invasion of the Home Islands by mobilizing the citizenry armed with bamboo spears! The majority position in the Japanese military even after Hiroshima was that a loss of twenty million lives wouldn't be unacceptable!. Luckily Tojo was no longer PM, or there would indeed have been a bloodbath and hundreds of thousands more Japanese would have been burned to ash, not by atomic bombs (although there was a third in theater about to be used) but by the tiny M69 napalm bomb that had proven very effective!.
The implications of the atomic bomb can't be minimized, but the actual effect on those cities was nothing that couldn't have been duplicated by conventional munitions, and there are plenty of examples to prove it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The truth is yes it was necessary!. The people of Japan were brainwashed by their emperor to believe all Americans were evil and they would rape and kill everyone including woman and children (although quite ironic since this is the mirror of many Japanese soldiers)!. If there was a mainland invasion of Japan it would have taken millions of American's lives and we would have had to literally wipe nearly every Japanese soldier and citizen off the face of the earth to take the mainland!. The atomic bombs brought Japan to it's knees and forced a surrender while sparing countless lives that would have been lost on both sides if they were not used!. Many other reasons are given to why the U!.S!. used the Atomic bombs including preventing a joint invasion with the Russians, both reasons are facts!. Although it was necessary it was still a rather unfortunate and horrific event!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The atomic bombs on Japan were completely unnecessary!. America had eliminated all Japanesse invasion forces and liberated every Japan occupied area!.

Almost a week before the dropping of the nukes the Japanesse government surrendered to America!.

Can you believe that!? After a government surrendered America still dropped nuclear weapons on their land killing milions and forever damaging that area!.

The American bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply America showing its ability to subdue other nations!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

War is hell, and WWII was significant for two reasons!. First was Germany!. If we hadn't defeated them by overwhelming numbers, they surely would have conquered the world through their scientific and engineering know how!.

The other significant thing was Japan, and the Japanese people!. They were willing to fight, tooth and nail, man, woman, and child if necessary to win and remain obedient to the Emperor!. There was no way we could invade the Japanese homeland without significant lose of life on both sides!. Unfortunately, we had the means to convince them to end fighting, and one wasn't enough to do it!. Both were classified as military targets, but as with any industry, military or not, there is a lot of civilian population near by!. Although I personally regret we had to do this, I still think there was not a whole lot of choice for Pres!. Truman to make!. In the long run, it was probably best we did drop the bombs!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The Japanese government and soldiers were fanatical at the time and were willing to do anything including dying to further their cause!. The atomic bombs were the only way to stop them as they were shown if they didn't stop the war they would cease to exist as a nation and as a people!.

Unfortunate, but necessary!.!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No, because neither of those cities were military targets!. Had it been Tokyo or Osaka, then I wouldn't ***** about it, because THOSE were military targets actively making weapons of war!. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were basically "hillbilly" communities only brought to world attention because nukes were dropped on them!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

the emperor of japan had contacted truman several times in the months prior to the bombs trying to negotiate a surrender!. truman being the *** that he was ignored these requests and wanted to show off the bomb to make america look more power full!. there was no need to drop the bombs the war was already over truman was not some great hero he was a cold blooded killer!. that is the truth of it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes!. because it was the necessity of 'that' time/period for survival of US and allies!. If not , they would have ceased to exist as nations!.
No!. because of the vast destruction and after effects that followed the n-bombings like the genocide, the mental trauma, the physical sufferings etc!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

It was a war crime, crime against humanity and its one of endless crimes committed by the Government of United States against the civilians of other countries all over USA history,
And definitely I don't agreeWww@QuestionHome@Com

Yes I agree with the atomic bombing of Japan!. The invasion of the Japanese home islands would have caused countless millions of lives on both sides of the fighting!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

What is your question!? WW 2 was a brutal event, not only caused by western retaliation, but by Jap cruelty! Nanking, Philippines, Korea!. You want the list to go on!?!?!?!?!? Human life is worth much more than animals!!!!Www@QuestionHome@Com

definetly YES!!!!Www@QuestionHome@Com

it is american president's foolishnessWww@QuestionHome@Com