Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki worth it?

[lil_will_12]

Here’s a great link to the pros and cons (I recommend reading them, it explains both sides very well), pls keep discussion civilized, both sides have very fair points in my opinion

https://www.cusd80.com/cms/lib6/AZ01001175/Centricity/Domain/3882/Pros%20and%20Cons%20on%20Dropping%20the%20Bomb.pdf

Yes, it was worth it to end the war completely/it was justified

No, the war could’ve been ended without the use of them/ it wasn’t justified

in the middle/not sure

[RebelinSteel]

At the time yes, in a war the idea is to try and reduce your own sides deaths and wounded. They had been fighting the Japanese across the Pacific and from India in to Malay. The Japanese had not surrendered nor had the war council made any overtures of any offer to surrender.
The losses the Allies were expected to have when invading Japan were considered too high, therefore the Hiroshima bomb was used. The first was fully justified.
now was the Nagasaki bomb justified, that one is slightly more contentious, there had been no formal offer of surrender from the war council and there were now reports of a coup attempt by junior officers. The final part is the Russians had declared war on japan on 9 August, the allies were already looking at potential war or conflict with Russia in the west with their claiming of territory, they did not want a west to east Russian communist ‘empire’, so the 2nd bomb was used and Japan surrendered.

it is always relatively easy to view historical events with hindsight and work out that other options were available, however at the time of all this, the drive was to end the war in the most allied life saving and effective method available.

[RebelinSteel]

Also no one ever really questions Operation Meetinghouse the firebombing of Tokyo, they always look at the use of atomic bombs.

[RingOfFire]

100% worth it. More than a million people both military and civilians would have died if America had to go in to mainland Japan to force Japan to surrender end the war. That's many times more than the number of people who were killed by the nuclear bombs.

My father was with the United States 6th Marine division that was stationed in China and would have been on the front lines of that invasion had it taken place. I probably wouldn't be here today if they didn't drop those bombs. And about a million and a half other people wouldn't be either.

The bombs not only saved net lives, but they put an end to the evil Japanese empire that threatened to dominate the world had they overtaken the United States. The bombs were necessary to end the war.

United State's President Truman's made one of the most difficult but also one of the most humane decisions in world history when he authorized the dropping of the bombs.

Japan refused to surrender after the first bomb was dropped so it was necessary to drop the second one after which they finally gave up their evil quest and surrendered unconditionally to the United States.

[ChicanaChick]

The 2nd bomb probably was overdone but I can't really feel sorry for the Japanese military. During peaceful talks, they lied and sneak attacked a country they can't beat in a full war of attrition. Japan failed miserably at studying the American culture and in their delusional minds really thought that delivering a devastating blow would make the US sue for peace. They horribly underestimated our people. The only way US would've sued for peace is if the country declares war and then if we were to lose, then we can accept things and have peaceful talks afterwards but at least that's fair and square. But a sneak attack? Hells nope.

I think if Japan would've simply declare war on US (even if they would've still lost), maybe they wouldn't have suffered a retaliatory reply like that.

[ChicanaChick]

Even if they had successfully destroyed all the carriers, even so; they would've still lost. The only difference is the war would've taken about 2 years later to end but with the same results. Actually maybe even worse. The US would've been even more pissed off for sure. So Japan's strategy failed miserably in every single way.
The only way would've been to declare way directly. That's the way our people prefer it, a direct confrontation, not sneak attacks.

[Syntosi]

Maybe? The war with Japan was already over. If I remember correctly they had even capitulated at the time. The usage of the bombs as such were not really to stop the war or even against Japan specifically, it was against the Soviet Union. Neither side were under any illusions that they were going to become friends after the war so in a way the cold war had already begun.

Looking back it was probably the usage of these two bombs during WW2 that prevented an open conflict against the Soviet Union. They were plenty ready to start a conventional war against each other and before witnessing the destruction of the bombs first hand it was not actually much of a deterrent. After all, unless you understand it then its just a really big bomb and bombs are certainly nothing new to you. After Japan was nuked the "bombs" became something else, something more. It was this usage that made the nuke into what we think of today and probably what made both sides afraid of using it.

[lil_will_12]

YES, I was hoping someone would point out the inclusion of the Soviet Union. I gotta say, it’s entirely possible that if USA hadn’t dropped the bomb, the Soviet Union would have gotten their hands on Japan, and japan would’ve been divided just like Korean. It’s possible that that could’ve led to a ton more conflicts in Asia

[NamerOfStars]

Lamentably, yes. The demand of total surrender was a necessity, since they'd TRIED to go easy on the Germans after the last war, and look how well that worked out. There really couldn't be any ambiguity.

War with the US had to be shown to be basically like war with the Mongols; there is no "limited victory"- you triumph or you die. Why, when every other world power was either disintegrated or in the process of falling apart? For the one that wasn't- the rising threat of the Soviets would've been apparent even at the time, and the detonation of those two bombs was probably what prevented war from restarting with the USSR just a few years later. It also showed what they could do, and helped keep others from setting theirs off during their own wars.

Remember, a person killed by an atomic bomb is no more dead than someone killed with conventional explosives.

[AviatorTom]

Yes, it was worth it. The bombings not only spared thousands (possibly millions) of Japanese and American lives, it also taught the world how dangerous nuclear weapons are... not a single one has been used in anger since, and we all hope it stays that way.

[BetaBucks]

I think we got a pretty good ROI on the kills per dollar spent. I think we could scale it up quite a bit. Oh, wait, that's not what you meant... Ummm... no, it was wrong. Very bad.

[lil_will_12]

Ik this is a joke lol 😂 (I hope 😳), but actually one of the justifications for it *was* because of how much money they had spent to create the A-bomb.

[BetaBucks]

Lmao 100% a dark joke. I voted that it wasn't worth it. Civilian targeting is always wrong. Wars should be fought in uninhibited areas, or not at all.

[Knightwatch27]

Asking if it was "worth it" is to phrase it unfairly and as a misunderstanding of the historical context. It was necessary. The Empire of Japan was a totalitarian and ethically supremacist state who comitted untold atrocities in Asia especially against the Chinese in the "rape of Nanking". They saw their emperor as a god, all other races of men as inferior and thereby justified in trampling them, and maintained an honour-bound culture as Japan has held uninterruptedly for millenia wherein no greater societal status could be achieved than to die for the Japanese nation and glory. And so this collectivist mindset rendered them almost indomitable in their resolve to keep fighting, even when WII was completely lost for the Axis powers. The bombings were the only things powerful enough to secure a surrender from a fanatic imperial regime and people, and prevent decades of further bloodshed.

[strateguy632]

when i was little my parents lied that it was right for ended the war but that is not a justified for using poison gas to "end war" so no merit, no justification, just mass murder by truman dnc. a stain on america like democrat slavery and opposition to black integration.

also check the dates the bomb didn't end the war, as they lied, something else did... something that could have been done in 1942!

[SotiCoto]

Honestly, it isn't about whether or not it is worth it. Japan needed an attitude adjustment, and it got one. Without that, they'd probably still be behaving like belligerent pieces of shit and picking fights with Korea every few years forever.

[AngryCarl]

I was born 15 years after the war ended and it was still fresh in the national memory. My Uncle fought in the Battle of Britain. You young kids have no clue about anything. Anything that shortened the war was justified.

[Twalli]

There's actually debate on this. My position is in the middle, because we dropped a second before the war ended, dropping the first was justified.

[DrPepper12]

Always did this simulation when i taught US history. Nuking them was the right call at that time with the available information.

[Anonymous]

Yes, in the sense that it was a live action way of testing a atomic weapon on a city and civilians. That you can't do outside of war.

[exitseven]

Yes, it saved the lives of many Americans.