Question Home

Position:Home>History> Was dropping the bomb on Hiroshima the right thing to do?


Question: Was dropping the bomb on Hiroshima the right thing to do!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
~The war was over!. No invasion of the mainland would have been necessary!. The firebombings of Tokyo killed more civilians than either bomb!. Had the US lost, Curtis LeMay would have been tried for war crimes for the firebombings (He said that, not me - but I agree and the same holds for Fat Man and Little Boy)!. Even if the Hiroshima bomb could be somehow justified, there is no possible excuse for dropping the second on Nagasaki 3 days later!. But they were different designs and the powers that were wanted to see if both worked and to campare the results!.

As to loss of millions of troops, that is a foolish myth!. The Soviets lost over 10 million troops in the war!. The US had about 350 thousand casualties (in both the Pacific and European theaters)!. Americans don't die in large numbers in war!. We let our allies do that for us!.

Given that Japan had no navy left, no air force and only a shell of her army by August '45, the war would have been successfully resolved by conventional weapons and a blockade!. The bombs were used just to see if they would work and to let Joe Stalin know we had them and would use them!. Don't forget, Fermi himself was not sure the bomb wouldn't start an uncontrollable chain reaction of global proportions when it was detonated, but Oppenheimer insisted it be tested anyhow simply because of all the time and money that went into it (not to mention his fragile ego and the need to be recognized for the project!.)

The Hiroshima bomb killed about 90,000 people (about 99% civilian although some troops may have been home on leave and there were, of course, the police I suppose could be called combatants)!. Of these, about 2,000 were Japanese Americans who had been unable to leave Japan when the war started!. Pearl Harbor casualties total 2,403, of which 68 were civilians!. Thus, we killed almost as many Americans at Hiroshima as the Japanese did at Pearl - but they went after military targets!.

The Nagasaki toll was between 60 and 80 thousand, but a goodly number of them were dead already, being refugees from the Hiroshima bomb who had made their way to "safety" in Nagasaki but who were suffering from terminal radiation sickness!. Then we have the generations of birth defects and disproportionate cancer deaths that can still be attributed to this humane act!.

However, it is justifiable, follow your logic to its reasonable conclusion!. The Moslem fanatics are at war with us!. They would surely be anihilated if they tried a conventional invasion of Hampton Roads!. If they are nuclear capable, justifiying Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifies them as well!. What's good for the shooter is good for the target, yes!?

Www@QuestionHome@Com

If you look at the isolated event, then probably no!. People always argue that it saved troops dying and ended the war quickly!. This is true but realistically the war would've ended soon anyway!. also, this is no excuse for the second bombing!.

However if you consider what would've happened if they hadn't dropped the bomb, things look different!. What would have happened in the Cold War!? With nothing to compare the effects to, I think that one of the countries would definatly have dropped a bomb and it would have probably had far worse effects than either of the 1945 ones!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Jaclyn's argument is a bit of an extreme revision of history!. I disagree that "No invasion of the mainland would have been necessary"!.
I agree that the firebombings of Tokyo and of German cities killed more civilians than either bomb!.
------------
It is popular to say that the US was too quick to drop the bomb on Nagasaki only 3 days later and that but I think that is some serious hindsight!. The US wanted a surrender, and they bombed until they got it!.
------------
I agree that the Soviets lost over 10 million troops in the war which dwarfed the US deaths of about 400 thousands!. Still the US knew from the casualties in Okinawa that the invasion of the mainland would have been devastating!.
------------
It is not certain that conventional weapons and a blockade would have worked!.
------------
Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not justify the annhilation of civilian targets in the modern day terrorism war!. That's just crazy!. Over 40 million civilians died in WWII!. There were thousands of campaigns on both sides (fire-bombings etc!.)!. The atomic bomb was a small percentage of that loss!. You can't draw the conclusion that the decision to drop the atomic bomb justifies terrorist acts 63 years later!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No, not really, it was the only way out of the war for USA to be victorious, and still try the bomb out on the real target and see how it "works"!. It was also a way of demonstrating the ability to use the bomb in war making USA one of the top influental nations in the world!.
The soldiers go to war as soldiers, but people who died in Hirosima and Nagasaki were normal civilians, imagine a bomb would exploded and destroy the city or place your are now in!. Most people would die!. Man, Woman, Childeren, All living things including dogs, cats and squirles!.

Its a common excuse that USA uses telling people about how generous act was it to toss a nuclear bomb on Japan!. I still would like to know who made the actual deccission!.

You can compare the nuclear bombing of Japan to WTC situation only imagine that the whole city would be destroyed instead of two skyscrapers!.

I cant belive some people still think it was a good thing to do!.
It was the biggest mistake ever seen!. Its not that they killed defensless people, but the fact that Americans did it purely for the benefits not for any good cause!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

If it was right for the US to kill civilians, then it must be right for every other country to do the same!.

The most common reason for justifying the dropping of the atomic bombs was that they saved US and Japanese lives that would have been lost if an invasion was launched!. However, there is no way to know how many lives would have been lost in an invasion!. The estimates of US deaths range from 50,000 to over 1 million!. The wide range suggests that these are little better than mere guesses, and any number can be selected to support any position!. also, the question of proportionality is completely subjective!. How many Jap women and children should be sacrificed to save each US soldier!? 1, 5, 10, 20!? The subjective nature of this justification is why the modern laws of warfare (fourth Geneva Convention) prohibit the deliberate use of violence against civilians for any reason!. It is too easy for anybody to justify!. All anyone has to do is say, "We saved <insert your favorite number> lives!." If we can do it, why can't everybody else!?

The need for an invasion may be questioned!. The Japanese military had precisely zero offensive capability by the summer of 1945!. They were not a threat to the US in any way!. Their shipbuilding and aircraft manufacturing abilities were gone, and they had severe fuel shortages!. Nearly all of their skilled pilots were dead!. The home islands were completely isolated by US submarines, nothing was getting in or out!. US carriers were ranging unopposed for the entire length of Japan and bombing everything in sight!. Hellcats and Corsairs were coming back to their carriers with bombs still on their racks, or dumping bombs at sea, because they couldn't find anything worth bombing!. We could have walked away, left the submarines in place, and the Japs wouldn't ever be a threat again!. You need steel and fuel to build a military, and the Japs weren't going to get it as long as US submarines stayed in place!. This is not revisionism, it is plain common sense!. No steel/fuel = no military!. No military = no threat!. It's called logistics!. From a strictly logistical and military point of view there was no need for an invasion!. The Japs were done even if they were too dumb and stubborn to admit it!. The only real reasons to consider invasion were emotional: the desire for retribution and reform!. Think about it!. We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians who were not a threat, just so we could hear their leaders say "uncle"!.

Why was it right to drop the atomic bombs!? The most honest answer is that we were pissed, we were and are the strongest nation on earth, we can do anything we want, say it is right, and nobody can do anything about it!. If anyone else drops atomic bombs or kills civilians we will execute them as war criminals!. Might makes right!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes!. It put an end to the war, and saved a great many allied lives (including my uncle, who was building the Burma railway and was just about on his last legs)!. Very likely more Japanese would have died as well if the war had gone on much longer!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Under the circumstances of the time, Yes!. It saved millions of lives that would have been lost in a prolonged war in Japan!. It brought WW II to an end!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

there is no morality in war, period!. The bomb ended the war quickly and probably saved tens of thousands (if not more) GI lives!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

yes

it was the only way to end the war quickly

and the Japanese were starving to death- but their government wasn't so they didn't even think of surrenderingWww@QuestionHome@Com

If you had ever talked to someone who was there (like my dad at Iwo Jima), you would never have had to ask the question!.

"Louise C", thank your uncle for his service!!Www@QuestionHome@Com

Killing people is never the right thing to do except in self defense!.Www@QuestionHome@Com