Would you have dropped the Atomic Bombs?

On August 6th, 1945, during World Ward 2, the US dropped the first atomic bomb in Hiroshima, immediately killing 80,000 people. On August 9th, the second bomb was dropped in Nagasaki, killing 40,000 people.
On August 15th, the Emperor Hirohito, released a radio statement where he said Japan was surrendering.

If you were in President Truman's position, would you have dropped those bombs?

  • Yes, I would have dropped the bombs
    33% (16)68% (62)56% (78)Vote
  • No, I wouldn't have dropped the bombs
    50% (24)29% (26)36% (50)Vote
  • I'm too ignorant about history, I don't know what I would have done
    17% (8)3% (3)8% (11)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
11|52

Most Helpful Girl

  • There's no question here.

    The dropping of the bombs was horrific, but, war is horrific, and all too often people make the mistake of looking at acts of war in a vacuum.
    We have to consider the question "What would have happened instead?"

    If we HADN'T dropped the bombs, it's absolutely certain that the fighting would have dragged on MUCH longer, with many times more casualties.

    There are at least 3 important points to consider here.

    #1:
    120,000 casualties isn't a huge number, in relative terms.

    I mean, for comparison's sake, in the battle of Iwo Jima -- where my grandfather served as a Navajo code talker (4th Marine Div) -- there were about 20,000 Japanese casualties, and Iwo Jima was a shitty little backwater island with almost no strategic importance.

    If the war had been allowed to drag on, there probably would have been MILLIONS of additional casualties.

    #2:
    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were weapons stockpile / armory locations, if I remember right. They weren't, like, random civilian targets that were bombed out of senseless cruelty. They were chosen VERY carefully, for maximum strategic effect at minimum collateral cost.

    #3:
    The entire nation of Japan was indoctrinated with the Kamikaze suicide mentality -- and the USSR was right there on the border ready to strike, along with Communist China.

    Basically, we had to strike fear in the hearts of the rest of the fucking world.

    How best to do that?

    With a really, really, really big blast, that's how.

    Truman was the type who definitely put the "gentle" in gentleman. He was NOT the type who would have made this sort of decision lightly.
    If someone like Truman gave the green light, he really must have had no other realistic choice.

    0|2
    0|0
    • They said if the bombs weren't dropped, an invasion of Japan would have happened, which meant an "Okinawa but in a much much bigger scale". In Okinawa 20 thousand Americans died, and between 77 thousand and 110 thousand Japanese died.
      All that in a small island like Okinawa.

    • Show All
    • If there are any really really REALLY good ones, though, let me know -- yr posts on here are consistently good, so, yr endorsement would carry some weight.

    • Thanks, I'll let you know then :)

Most Helpful Guy

  • No, I certainly wouldn't have dropped the bombs.
    And here's why:
    First of all, just to make clear to everyone that I'm not ignorant about history: I'm currently pursuing my Master's degree in history. So clearly, I'm more of an expert than most people on here. I understand there are reasons for and against it. And I myself used to wonder if it was perhaps the right decision to drop those bombs. But here's the thing: Last year I went on a big trip to Japan with my best friend. On that trip, we also spent 3 days in Hiroshima. On one of those 3 days, we visited the Atomic Bomb Museum. It's a pretty big and incredibly educational museum. But it's not just informational, it's also heart-wrenching. I don't get easily affected by sad things and this was literally one of the saddest things I've ever experienced. We spent about 4 hours in that museum and when we came out, both of us couldn't speak for HALF AN HOUR. We just walked quietly next to each other, both lost in thoughts. I was so close to crying in that museum, I was glad my friend was a bit faster and usually already in the next room. Some of these stories that I read and heard (on audio) in that museum still haunt me today. For example of a dad who only managed to identify his completely burned 8-year old daughter because he noticed her half-molten blue bicycle next to her. I don't have children and I almost died inside when reading and hearing these stories. I don't even want to know how I would have felt had I a daughter of my own at home.
    People say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military bases - well maybe. The fact is that the large majority of victims were - and are - innocent civilians. This "are" is particularly important. There are people STILL TODAY who suffer from these bombs. There are still today children being born with gruesome disabilities and mutations. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died of cancer years and decades after the bombs had been dropped. So claiming that the bombs saved lives is extremely cynical. Yes, it saved GI-lives. But it destroyed MILLIONS of lives of innocent Japanese families. These people who had to look for their daughters and sons and their moms and girlfriends and brothers and sisters in the ruins of those cities... these people weren't fascists. They were normal people, most of whom suffered from their own government and who didn't care much about politics. Anyone who has been to that museum can't possibly say yes to your question anymore.

    2|2
    0|0
    • Their government put them in the situation to get killed by refusing to surrender. We weren't the bad ones their government was

    • Show All
    • @reptocarl that the Japanese had a million men in China and had to be stopped.

What Girls Said 10

  • Perhaps there might have been another option but that's part of war, esp if your country was sneak attacked by another country whom they were suppose to be at peace with.

    Something you have to ask yourself: If Japan had the atomic bomb too, do you honestly think they would care about killing thousands of innocent lives? Nope, they would probably have been a lot more ruthless than the US. Unlike the US who told them to surrender or else face mass destruction before even dropping the 1st atomic bomb on Hiroshima, I'm willing to bet Imperial Japan wouldn't have given any warnings.

    0|5
    0|0
    • Exactly. The US dropped leaflets warning the citizens to evacuate the city and to ask its Emperor to surrender. The US objective was to destroy the industries producing military armament, not to kill innocent people, but not dropping the bombs would have meant an invasion, resulting in more deaths than those cause by the bombs.

    • Show All
    • @Josht11 120 thousand isn't close to half a million.
      I never said it was pretty, but it was the right thing to do. Either 120 thousand killed, or more millions killed. The US chose the option where less people died, even warning them before the attacks so that less people would die.

    • I misread 40,000 as 400,000 although the US did kill around 330,00 civilians before this so I was still right. I'm tired now but I'm just gonna say this it is never right to commit horrific war crimes that would be deemed illegal today by the UN. You don't waterboard a terrorist (anymore) even though it will get info quicker that's because it goes against human rights and shows that we are just as bad as them. I don't think committing war crimes is ever justified and I am amazed you could defend something that horribly maimed and killed innocent civilians.

  • No. Because two wrongs (or in this case, two bombs,) don't make a right.

    Call me whatever you want. But I don't think that bombs were necessarily the only option. I would've sent a secret agent to kill their emperor, and then some more to inspire a revolution, which would make their government collapse. And since our government had spies, why not?

    2|2
    0|0
    • The Emperor wasn't the major problem, it was the military officials. They were turning Japan into a military state. They were making everyone join the military to fight the US. Even after the bombs were dropped, the officials still wanted to keep fighting, cause they were getting ready for a decisive battle (Ketsu-go in Japanese), but after those bombs were dropped, the Emperor decided to ignore his officials, and surrender.
      If the bombs weren't dropped, the US would've had to invade Japan, were more people would have died.

      I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, though.

    • Show All
    • Well yeah. I'm not going to just sit here with my phone and argue all night about something that already happened. Lol.

      The strongest people know how to pick and choose their battles. (See what I did there? Lol.)

    • Have you seen the alternative, it was called X-Day
      They printed up so many purple hearts in prep that we are still using the ones from that.

  • Absolutely. I think it needed to be done. Japan didn't even surrender after the first bomb so do people really believe they would have stopped for less?

    3|2
    0|0
  • It didn't just kill people, as horrible as that is, it also maimed survivors leaving them in terrible pain and gave a lot of people cancer. It would have had a lot of other economical and social effects on Japan. Just a really hideous and monstrous thing to do. There is an ethical way to "war" and that is not it.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Would it have been ethical to kill millions upon millions of Japanese people by conventional means because the Japanese forces were not backing down in fact they were becoming more furious with Kamikaze plane attacks, banzai charges hell they were blowing themselves up under tanks.

    • Show All
    • He's right though. The other option was to invade Japan and it would have cost a million American casualties only, which for Japan would have been like triple.
      Also, when you invade a country, civilians are gonna die, and more than those killed by the atomic bombs.
      Those were the estimates and why Truman decided to drop the bombs.

    • Over a 100,000 Japanese soldiers died fighting for Okinawa and that wasn't even mainland Japan. You got to look at the casualties Imperial Japan had already taken during the fire bomb raids on their cities, the casualties taken in China, Burma, the southern Pacific, the Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa. The Japanese had already killed 35million people with rifles, bayonets, samurai swords and all manner of barbarism. Two million Japanese soldiers had died already fighting for worthless islands and territory, all Japanese were fanatical in their obedience to their Emperor and would gladly fight to the end for him even going as far as committing suicide for him. The Japanese killed more people than the Nazis or the Soviets.

  • I don't know since from anything I hear. That we actually didn't need to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. That the atomic bomb was an over kill move.
    www.historyextra.com/.../was-us-justified-dropping-atomic-bombs-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-during-second

    0|1
    0|0
  • That bomb killed innocents who had no idea about war. babies, children. People died in agony, their skin literally peeling off. It took weeks for some to die. Months. People are still suffering now from the horrifying effects. Disgusting that this is even a question. At least a battle would of meant soldiers who knew what they were getting themselves into. Not soldiers innocent babies.

    1|1
    0|0
    • First of all, scientists didn't know about the long term effects. They didn't know that after years of the bomb being dropped, they would still suffer from the radiation.
      But, besides that, you do know more civilians would have died if an invasion of Japan would have happened, right?

    • they are scientists, if they couldn't have thought ahead to possible outcomes they shoudnt of been dropping it in the first place.
      More could have/probably would of died yes. But most people who died would be soldiers and military people who knew what they were doing at least. that's my opinion.

  • No no no no.
    Never qould I have made such a decision causing so maany people to lose their lives and suffer the after affects till this day.
    In the end what is more precious then human lives innocent unarmed civilian lives.
    I just possibly couldn't do anything so brutal.

    0|1
    0|0
  • On Japan? No way, that's one of my favorite countries...

    0|1
    0|0
    • It was also your favorite when they were massacring millions of people?

    • Show All
    • But the Soviets declared war AFTER the Hiroshima bombing.

    • Yeah, they would have declared it even without that bombing, it was not necessary at all.

  • i am not at liberty to say

    1|1
    0|0
  • Do I know what I know now about what happened or am I literally Truman?

    0|0
    0|0
    • You're literally Truman.

    • If I was literally Truman, I probably would have done the same.

      Many people speculate that Japan would have surrendered eventually, and probably not long after Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Obviously it's impossible for us to know for sure what would have happened had the atomic bombs not been deployed. I understand why it was done, and I understand why everyone felt it was the only course of action at the time. That's why, were I in the exact same situation without any knowledge of the ensuing fallout, I probably would have done the same.

      However, as I like to think that humans are a little better than animals in their ferocity, I hope that we are eventually able to move past the desire to completely obliterate each other over differing ideologies. Maybe if we all butt out of each other's business, it could actually happen.

What Guys Said 51

  • Yes I would have dropped them if I was in his position because if we hadn't we would have had to invade Japan itself because Japanese was never going to surrender otherwise, and it would have resulted hundreds of thousands of deaths with massive casualties on both sides.

    Was it unfortunate? yes was it necessary sadly so but by dropping the bombs we saved the lives of entire nation because like I said above if we had invaded they would have fought to the last man and it would have been a bloodbath plus the two cities we bombed also housed large inventories of weapons. And the Japanese military was planning on taking the fight to us and they may not have had nukes but they were planning on using dangerous biological and chemical weapons. And their military was in the process of turning the entire country into a military state and militarizing all the civilians and were brainwashing them into believing that we were monsters and ruthless murderers and they believed the marine corp was not full of regular men but full of prisoners the most bloodthirsty and insane prisoners available.

    If we had invaded it would have been a massacre on both sides.

    3|2
    0|0
  • A ground invasion would have been more time-consuming, costly, and deadly, only with more of the deaths being American. None of the bleeding-heart pussies on GaG have ever made a more difficult decision than choosing whether to get sugar and cream in their Starbucks latte, yet they think they can criticize a President as good as Truman for dropping the bombs.

    3|5
    0|0
  • Yes.

    Why?

    Because there were innocent civilians suffering in China, the Philippines, and other parts of Asia that were occupied by Imperial Japan. The horror they faced was in many ways even worse than the Holocaust in Europe, and frankly it is a great shame that so much of this has been overlooked. Civilians were literally burned alive, tortured, raped and forced to commit incest with their family members to humiliate them, and sexually enslaved among other crimes. Children weren't even spared as even little girls were raped and brutalized.

    The way I see it is that every day we did not stop Imperial Japan was another day that innocent Asian civilians had to suffer under their rule. It was another innocent little girl taking a bayonet through the vagina. The atomic bomb was the fastest way to end the war, thus I see no shame in using it, unless a faster alternative came to light.

    Hell, I'd drop 100 atomic bombs on Imperial Japan if that was the fastest way to end the suffering of our innocent Asian allies.

    0|3
    0|0
    • By dropping an atomic bomb you also caused the painful suffering to certain people and death of other innocent people this affected their children badly as well by doing this I think the US is just as evil we're talking about a shit ton of people being killed on a city a civilian area. There's a reason people are calling for nuclear disarmament and I just could think of myself as an ethical person to cause all that suffering to stop suffering.

    • @Josht11 what about the millions of Japanese lives saved by dropping the bomb. The Japanese would never have given up.

  • No, I wouldn't have dropped the bombs. Because there were already contacts to talk about a honorable surrender by Japan.

    BUT dropping the bombs , we could show their effect to the whole world, mainly to Stalin.
    In short, we killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese to to show Stalin what we could do to Russian cities.

    1|3
    0|0
    • That's completely wrong. Japan wasn't close to surrendering.

    • Show All
    • Roosevelt died in April...

    • On top the fact the Japanese had amassed a horde of precious metals, gems, cash and ancient texts to rival anything the Germans had. The only way to seize was to force an unconditional surrender. Your talking the equivalent of trillions of dollars

  • No fucking way it was fucked up what the US did they were innocent people some with horrible torturous burns and many people left radioactive and has done severe damage to the children of those people I don't know how anyone can say they would drop that bomb so heartless just to kill so many people which includes school children.

    3|3
    0|0
    • I understand it's a war but there's a reason war crimes were drawn up, this is mindless brutality that yeah got results but I don't think it was worth the consequences.

    • Show All
    • @Righttobeararms83 The ends never justify the means.

    • The fact that millions of Japanese didn't die thanks to two atomic bombs does justify the means. Appeasing a war like nation like imperial Japan that killed civilians by the millions and not in a merciful way but by sheer butchery is a crime because you lack the will to act in the defence of others.

  • The bombs were aimed at innocent Japanese people and not soliders. That was not a just move because the Japanese never attempted to kill a mass number of American citizens. (pearl harbor was a military base, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were port CITIES). I would have dropped those bombs directly on military bases, not on possibly 100000 (i left room of 40000 soliders) innocent civilians (including innocent men, women, children, grandparents, and great grandparents who didn't make a difference in the outcome of the war.

    1|1
    0|0
    • But the bombs were dropped on industrialized cities that were providing military armament to the Japanese army. That was the target, not the civilians, who were warned to evacuate the city.

    • Show All
    • so many other strategies could have been implemented such as using smaller bombs, but more or at least dont bomb 140000 people because of some facilities. Those bombs cost a fortune and they could afford more, but less powerful bombs to drop on more specific targets. That is like bombing New york bc i didn't like 30 factories that were building weapons

    • Yeah, but that wouldn't have scared the Japanese Empire, cause regular bombs wouldn't be anything new.
      The atomic bombs scared the Emperor. He believed if they didn't stop fighting, those bombs would have been dropped on bigger cities, and completely destroy Japan.

  • Yes I would have. War is nasty and ugly, and at the time it was important because soooo many troops were dying. If my goal is to defend my country and that's the weapon that's needed to end the war as quickly as possible then yeah I would use it.

    1|5
    0|0
    • yeah but this is a clear war crime that destroyed the land for years and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, Japan didn't kill anywhere near that many non-troops people it was so fucked up in my opinion and is illegal now under the UN because it is a war crime. War is nasty because of these kinds of acts that tear apart innocent people I'm sure if Japan dropped a nuke on the US your mind would change.

    • Show All
    • Look man I can't be arsed going other this again I'm just gonna outline my points then I gotta go to bed it's almostr 00:30 am.
      The US committed a war crime that killed a lot of civilians destroyed the land for years and affected the children of the survivors severely.
      People don't want nuclear weapons used the UN doesn't allow it and what the US did is considered illegal and horrific.

    • @Josht11 At the time was it a war crime? Or did they do that AFTER the bombing? If it's after then at the time it was not a war crime.

      So nope. Not illegal, but yes horrific.

      Life isn't fair and people do bad things. Sorry if that's news to you.

  • It would have been a complete massacare, on both sides, to have attempted a conventional invasion of the Japanese home islands.

    The entire population had been mobilised into militias, and brainwashed into believing that Americans were ruthless murderers who would kill every man, woman and child. Surrender was not an option.

    Far more than 120,000 would have died.

    You also have to bear in mind that the Americans were preparing for the post-war world. They had seen what Stalin's USSR had done to Germany. They had to demonstrate their deterrent to him maintaining his momentum and not just stopping at Berlin.

    0|2
    0|0
    • Well I guess they were right that Americans were ruthless murderers, maybe it would have been far more than 120,00 but this was 120,00 innocent people and school children they weren't the army this was a civil area.

    • Show All
    • @Josht11 Even more ruthless than the japanese who raped and killed hundreds of thousands of chinese people in nanking right?

    • @Josht11 The targets were chosen as untouched cities so they could measure the damage.

  • Yes I would have. An invasion of mainland Japan would've cost too many American lives and iN war that's my concern. Not the enemies lives. Their government kept their people getting killed by refusing to surrender. If they don't care I certainly dont

    1|1
    0|0
  • No I consider the use of WMDs to be a war crime.
    There is no honour in the use of such weapons and it violates the rules of war.
    They were used mostly to scare the Soviets and prevent them from gaining more ground as well as achieving a quick peace in Japan which supposedly saved many lives.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLkVj9U1h7U
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9H6o83NUf4

    1|1
    0|0
    • It was not to scare the Soviet, that was not the main objective, but it was something that came along with the operation.
      Like I've said in other opinions, the bomb was dropped because it was either that or an invasion of Japan, and the invasion would have cost millions of lives, way much more than the bombings.

    • Show All
    • @Righttobeararms83 They were considering their options after the first atomic bomb and then the US dropped a second one.
      There were far more civilian casualties then that of soldiers. The Japanese were realizing that the war was over. They saw what the fire bombings in Tokyo did to their country, it was only a matter of time.

    • Only for the emperor the Japanese would have fought on even after the invasion. Ask the Japanese they will tell you.

  • It was a terrible thing that had to be done. President Truman received the reports from his military advisers as to how many U. S. casualties would be suffered from an invasion of the main Japanese islands. It was a number that was greater than the amount of life that was lost from dropping the 2 bombs. The U. S. never wanted a war with the Empire of Japan. Japan started the war by bombing Pearl Harbor. The United States finished it.

    0|1
    0|0
  • "I'm too ignorant about history, I don't know what I would have done" But @phoenix98 just clued me in LOL.

    Well I know/knew why we bombed them due to the story being told in video games 24/7 but still >_<

    0|1
    0|0
  • Since the only other alternative was to invade Japan and inflict far far far far more deaths, I probably would have dropped the bombs.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Yes. I would have.

    Yes, the atomic bombs were horrible. I've been to the Peace museum in Hiroshima, and it's really one of the saddest places on earth. Some of the displays there were just horrific.

    But it was something that needed to be done. What the Japanese Imperial army was doing across Asia was, in many ways, worse than what the Nazi was doing to Jews in Europe. The allies gave the Japanese many chances to step down, and time and time they refused. The only remaining option was a full scale land invasion, and given the human costs that would involve, the atomic bomb was the lesser of two evils.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I definitely would have dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. That's what u get for sneak attacking us, assholes.

    1|2
    0|0
    • With the several years of nuclear weapons development via the Manhattan Project, this also provided the opportunity to use this superweapon in actual warfare.

  • I wouldn't. Fast forward several years from now, picture the US turned to a Marxist government, the US military force declares war to X country. People have shit to do with it. Then you slowly see X country dropping an atomic bomb to the US. You survive, looking like a walking zombie while all your family and thousands of people (including children) are dead.

    See where I am going here? All the expense of your government succumbing to a communist takeover. The atomic bomb was targeted at civilians not at the police force.

    Japan did surrender, yes, The country prevented being invaded, yes. But it was a barbaric and horrifying act and nothing will ever justify that.

    0|1
    0|0
    • But civilians weren't the main target, they were told to evacuate via leaflets. They were told what was gonna happen, but they stayed there.
      The target was the industrial cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the people in it, and in the end, that prevented an invasion that also prevented the death of millions of people.

    • Show All
    • There you go, it was a mistake. They acted out of ignorance by not actually knowing the long term effects of radiation and such. Also, complete anihilation isn't justified to simply cause fear and force the surrender, and I'd be going back to my initial point with this. I'm not saying the Japanese were saints in this story, no no. They were planning an invasion in US territory, but the US steeped up to the terror and wiped out entire villaiges full of innocent people. They avoided a horror with a far greater one basocally. We're delving into a grey area with this for sure, but I will never change my mind on how barbaric and horrifying were these acts.

    • stepped*
      villages*
      basically*

  • Yes, be cause the only other way Japan would have surrendered was if america did a full blown invasion of japan. When we invaded Okinawa, america lost 7600 men, Japan lost 110,000, and this wasn't even a main island or even an extremely important one with high population, just imagine what it would be like on the main islands. Japan would have thrown every man, woman, and child at the invaders. I be lieve the death predictions for the invasion was done by Winston Churchill, and he said, " it would cost one million American lives and half a million more British" now this only American and British lives, that's not even including Japanese loses, or even ant other allied forces that wanted to help in the invasion, so yes I would, I rather the enemy lose under 150,000 opposed to me and my alies losing 1.5 millions + lives, plus, well over 2 million lives of the enemy. What would you do Ale? ( sorry for the really long answer, I just really like world war 2 history)

    1|1
    0|0
    • Actually, they say around 20 thousand Americans died during the Okinawa battle. They said an invasion of Japan would have meant an Okinawa at a much much bigger scale. So imagine those 20k + 110, multiplied by who knows how much. Millions of people were expected to die.

      I would have dropped the bomb too. And don't worry for the long answer, at least you know what you're talking about.

  • For all the people who said they wouldn't have nuked japan, you people are morons. If we wouldve invaded, hundred of thousands of American soldiers wouldve died, millions of japanese soldiers wouldve died, and many more civivlians would of died from the fight to the death in the major cities. The department of war as it was called back the made so may purple hearts because they were expected so many casualtues, that we are still isuing those same purple hearts to soldiers eho get hurt today. So i know it feels good to say, i wouldn't have nuked them, but honestly, it was better. History has determined that truman was correct so there's that.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Exactly. People don't understand that an invasion would have meant more civilians dead, plus the millions of soldiers.

    • Yeah, but thats what this site is for right. To inform people of different things. at least now they know, if they read y comment.

    • And if they want to believe.

  • Yes I would have. The Japanese would have put guns and bombs into the hands of women and children fighting to the last man just as they had done on every Island and would have cost the Japanese millions upon millions of lives not to mention allied lives. They were willing to sacrifice everything for the emperor and had Kamikazi plane attacks and suicidal banzai charges. War is an ugly thing and today we can talk about lessening colatoral damage with smart bombs and such but it was total war in 1945 and Japanese civilians were an integral part of the Japanese war effort. People forget the japs killed 35+ million Chinese.

    0|1
    0|0
  • No, for the vast majority of casualties were civilian. And it was not just the immediate carnage but the legacy after. Barbarically cruel.

    Very like when they napalmed during the Vietnam war and some of it went into neighbouring Cambodia. Generations after they couldn't grow rice on those fields

    1|1
    0|0
  • yeah. hiroshima and nagasaki were both armory sites, not civilian cities. also, it basically neutralized japanese attacks and ended the war in the pacific. the only bad thing was that it caused a neuclear arms race.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Show All
    • It's hard finding someone that knows about these kind of stuff. People instantly think the US wanted to kill civilians. That's wrong.

      And yeah, Japan's plans were even worse than the atomic bombs.

    • at least someone knows shit on this site a couple others, but @vomitiii put it best!

  • If I was in-charge, I wouldn't. It worked, Japan surrendered, but was the cost worth it?

    But again, as a third person perspective, anytime a bunch of stupid people want to kill one another , idc, I am a happy man, as long as they show a dozen people blowing up live on TV.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Opposed to invading mainland Japan? Definitely. If was POTUS and had the nuke early on, I would have just dropped a nuke on Japan the day after Pearl Harbor, saved a lot of Pacific Island fighting.

    Would I have nuked Japan as opposed to accepting a conditional surrender? Ehh... probably not.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I agree with the USA retaliating at that time. However, I might have tried to find another way to fight back without thousands of civilians having to die in the process. But I'm not an expert on this kinda stuff...

    So all I'll say is I would fight back. The Japanese Imperialists were very evil and cruel people in that time.

    0|1
    0|0
    • The Japanese weren't even close to surrendering. Even after the bombs were dropped, the military officials still wanted to keep fighting, but the Emperor said no.
      Also, the objective wasn't civilians, they were warned before the attack, telling them to evacuate. The objective was to destroy the industries creating military armament.

    • I agree with you.

  • Yeah, and this says something about me and its not necessarily a good thing,
    I'd have dropped them right in front of the imperial palace.
    turn everyone in the line of succession.
    That would have made the Japanese pretty much ready to lay down and die

    0|1
    0|0
  • Yes. I actually wrote a 10 page paper on this last year. If the US hadn't done it thousands of American lives would have been lost invading Japan. Also, the US was aware that the Soviets were close to invading Japan themselves, making a very dangerous and vulnerable position for the US to be in. With ballistic missile placements in Japan, the Soviets would have easily been able to reach any place in the Mainland United States.

    0|1
    0|0
    • I would also like to add that Japan had many chances to surrender, with the US warning them about nuclear weapons and dropping leaflets and warnings to evacuate cities.

  • Check the history as to why they did drop the bomb. The Japanese were backed up to their shores, so a landing invasion was in the plans. But they knew if they did, the casualties on both sides would have been staggering. And the Japanese people are fierce, so the allies would have had to capture the whole island. Hence the decision to drop the bomb, as horrible as it was. That's the condensed version.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Exactly. It was either the bombs, or an invasion causing millions of casualties.

    • Yup, thats what I remember reading and hearing. The bomb is a horrible thing but in this case, it probably saved millions of lives. Hope to never have to use it again.

  • I would have dropped them on a military target though, not a city. That way it would demonstrate how powerful they were without killing so many people.

    1|1
    0|0
  • It's tempting to criticise the Americans for the atom bomb on Japan, but we forget the thousands of Chinese and Korean civilians that Japanese soldiers killed indiscriminately during the War. A lot of awful people did unspeakable things. A lot of heroic people sacrificed everything they could give. All in the name of nationalism and ideology

    0|1
    0|0
  • well this is hard... i guess sooner or later "somebody" would have dropped one. better me first, than the other.

    0|1
    0|0
  • More from Guys
    21

2 private opinion(s)
Only the asker and the opinion owner can see it. Learn more

Loading...