What would you do if you were in Truman'so shoes in regards to Hiroshima?

Suppose you were in Harry Truman'a position in 1945. Los Alamos sends you a message saying the atomic bomb is ready. Then they ask you, "What are your orders, Mr./Madam President?" How do you answer?


0|0
2|9

Most Helpful Girl

  • He was in a difficult situation, for sure. I have no doubt that the bomb, as awful as it was, ended up saving many more lives than were lost on that day.

    I can only hope our future leaders will be blessed with strength and foresight.

    Me? I would have said drop it in the hopes more war would be averted. In private, I would have regretted my actions every day after.

    1|1
    0|0
    • " I would have said drop it in the hopes more war would be averted. In private, I would have regretted my actions every day after. "

      Wow. This deserves the Most Painfully Honest Opinion.

Most Helpful Guy

  • I think he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. It is assumed The US would have had to fight tooth and nail for main land Japan, which I agree with given it took TWO nukes to get Japan to surrender... so many more soldiers dying and resources spent which could be saved with two bombs.

    On the flip side, I know old guys who saw the after effect of the bombing and they have all said it was not worth it, and wrong. And in some ways those areas are still recovering today, 70 years later...

    If I HAD to choose, unfortunately I think he made the right call in using the bomb. Considering the larger geopolitical strife starting with the Soviet Union, it was both a full statement of 'winning' the nuclear race, so that made more people fear the US and therefore side with us post war. This also kept Japan squarely in US occupation, unlike Berlin and Germany which went on to be a battle field for politics for between East and West for over 40 years. (Russia would have landed in Japan within a few weeks, far sooner than the US could fully take control).

    I don't think this was a 'good choice' but I think over all, if it were me, that is what I would choose and why, and I would likely loose a lot of sleep over it...

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 1

  • wow, i dont even know.

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 8

  • I'm not entirely sure. I haven't really done a lot of research into whether or not it was truly nessesary. I've heard that it saved lives by avoiding more war but I have also heard the argument that it wasn't really nessesary and that it was just a way for the US to show off and test this new weapon on actual people.

    Personally I'd never agree to be president in the first place.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'd continue to discuss with Japan about a conditional surrender and stop my generals from testing their new toy on humans.

    0|0
    0|0
    • So what are your orders, Mr. President?

      By the way, is it possible that Groves primarily wanted to end the war? Is that even a possibility at all? Or is it completely impossible and all he saw the atomic bomb for was a new toy to test on humans?

    • Show All
    • Japan's principal cities were already devastated by napalm bombings, its supplies cut off, it was all alone. It was trying to negoctiate a peace.
      The destruction of two more cities only added hundreds of thousands of deaths to an already grueling war count.

    • I got it. Don't drop the bomb, Mr. President.

      Now what terms are acceptable to you?

  • Drop it is what I would have said drop the bombs

    Nuking them in the grand scheme of things was the best option if we hadn't we would have invaded them and even more people would have died on both sides and it was the only way to get make the Japanese stop fighting. Back then the Japanese were fierce fighters if we hadn't had nuked them they would have fought to their dying breaths.

    0|0
    1|1
    • Do you think not invading Japan was ever an option?

    • Nope the Japanese back then were proud and strong they would have kept on fighting, dropping the bombs or invading them would have been the only two ways it would have ended.

  • He fires it, people hate him. He doesn't, he's seen as weak. Truman did the thing that saved the most lives. And besides, Japan wasn't at all making things easy for him. I admire Truman. He was brilliant.

    0|1
    1|2
    • It's interesting that you bring up Japan's culpability. No one seems to talk about the point that Japan must bear some responsibility for the U. S. dropping the bomb on them. Their dickering, their arguing among themselves over "how" to surrender, their hopes that Russia would intervene on their behalf in spite of Russia not giving any hints that this would be the case, all of this just ensured the continued destruction of their nation, through atomic bombing AND conventional bombing (which accounted for more lives than both atomic bombs).

    • Yes. Now, the people of Japan weren't the ones to blame; the emperor was the one who took things too far.

  • "Drop it like it's hot."

    0|0
    0|0
  • Use it and end this carnage and lunacy with all deliberate speed.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I wouldn't be able to do it tbh

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes I would have dropped the atomic bomb, but the first one would have been dropped in the ocean only to show the power the US had at it's disposal. If Japan did not surrender then the next one would have gone to a populated city to save more lives in the long run from being lost due to a mainland invasion of Japan.

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...