Should the US have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan in WWII?

[msc545]

Not just once - twice they did this.

[RebelinSteel]

It was one of those events that should have been avoided but at the time was necessary, the fire bombing of Japanese cities was just as bad. The allied navies and troops were getting ready to invade Japan, Okinawa showed what could happen if they attacked one of the main islands.
Another reason was the Soviets were about to enter the war against Japan and by now the Allies knew how the soviets would act. There was a real risk of all countries in the Far East becoming Soviet block countries, they agreed the impact would have been horrendous on the ‘free’ world, hence the 2nd bomb.

[northerngal]

I think there was very little choice. A blockade would have killed more civilians than the bombs did due to starvation. An invasion would have done the same. Peace would have been more difficult as well with the Soviets soon to enter the Pacific Theater. A quick peace was necessary and the Japanese government needed a shock to loosen the control of the militarists committed to national suicide. The shock of atomic weapons was enough to push the Emperor to rise up and accept the Potsdam Accord. I also believe as a side effect seeing the horror of atomic weapons has played a role in preventing they have never been used since... so far.

[purplepoppy]

No, a simple naval blockage would have forced them to surrender with little risk to America. It was dropped to prove a point nothing more and the story it would save millions of American lives concocted to ease the public consciousness.

[AngryCarl]

What would a naval blockade have achieved beyond starving the entire population?

[msc545]

@AngryCarl They would have surrendered.

[purplepoppy]

It could be argued it was their phoenix moment that allowed them to surpass America technologically. No one wants a car or electric item made in America, everyone wants Japanese

[msc545]

They build better stuff than we do.

[Fireguy17]

their reasoning at the time was because of the Japanese culture/beliefs that if they tried to end the war in a conventional way would have cost way more lives and taken years longer.
They needed to do something to let them know that it was pointless to continue to fight, and using conventional weapons would not have done that.
Right, wrong or indifferent, it is part of history.
The speculation still continues to this day.

[Bricealan]

I agree with 'northerngal' as to do other wise, more lives would have been lost had they not... then again... look at the innocent Japanese lives that it cost that country.

Sadly, many civilians lost their lives in a horrible way because the Japanese leaders at the time refused to surrender, and it seems the war would have gone on for years later with even more lives lose... theirs and ours.

Then too, it ushered the Nuclear Age and we all lose staring at that threat.

[exitseven]

Yes, it ended the war in Japan in two days. The longer it went the more Americans would be killed. And the Germans were doing heavy water experiments and soon would have their own atomic bomb.

Made in America, Tested in Japan

[BoopBoopBeep]

I believe in total war. It should be ugly and harsh and overwhelmingly violent. Maybe then people wouldn't be so quick to wage it.

[DJB72]

Not the second one.

Japan was ready to surrender after Hiroshima

[OlderAndWiser]

So why didn't Hirohito surrender after Hiroshima?

[DJB72]

Chester Nimmitz noted the Japanese had sued for peace before Hiroshima.

William D Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff said "My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Curtis Lemay of XXI Bomber Command said "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."

William Halsey Jr said "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment... It was a mistake to ever drop it... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it."

If Hirohito had developed the bomb and deployed it against just one Allied target before ultimately losing the war, he would have been hanged for war crimes.

Even Hiroshima was unnecessary based on the evidence from the commanders of the Pacific forces. Japan was blockaded and had limited ability to rebuild it's military force, and the Soviets finally declaring war against Japan gave Hirohito the choice of surrender to America or to the Soviets.

[lightbulb27]

As far as i can tell yes. My justification for that could result in others justifying as well. Thats not good…

[DrPepper12]

I used to this exercise with my students. Great conversations and debates. Teenagers came down to a 3:4 ratio to nuke the fuckers and I will not question their wisdom.

[dreamstar72]

Yes to end the deadly war. We should have had them in WW1 because if we did and we dropped them on Japan then WW2 might have not taken place.

[RebelinSteel]

Erm Japan was on the Allies side during WW1, that would not have been very sporting. There were Japanese observers at Jutland and exchange officers in the RN. The rejection of the racial equalities clause by the US was one of reasons Japan moved away from the west and League of Nations.

[dreamstar72]

Sorry bad move on my part thought both Japan and Germany were against the USA in WW1. Then we should have nuke Germany, but weird we basically rebuilt Germany then had lots of bases in Germany until the mid 90’s. We did strange things with our tax dollars in the late 80’s. I know we were stationed there.

[Cheerguy]

No it was barbaric

[JacobJordan]

Absolutely

[jahaims]

Yeah

[AngryCarl]

I would have.