Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

[Go_Oilers_Go]

I think that it was necessary for the States to drop the bombs. Sure, the war was indeed turning in the favour of the States, but I believe that Eisenhower took the viewpoint that the bombs would have to be dropped in order to end the war quickly with as few American casulties as possible. Besides, there is a chance that the Japanese could've fought back and regained many of the islands in the Pacific. The bombs were truly the only surefire way to end the war.

When responding to this question, please stay within the realm of the impact the bombs had on WWII and not the consequences after (being the Cold War tensions between the States and Russia).

[Relambrien]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

When responding to this question, please stay within the realm of the impact the bombs had on WWII and not the consequences after (being the Cold War tensions between the States and Russia).

I don't think this is possible. Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed the face of war. If you're going to talk about whether or not it was appropriate to drop the bombs, then considering the aftereffects, as massive as they were, is pretty much a must.

If you're just going to talk about it from a WWII perspective, then of course dropping the bombs was the best solution. Minimal casualties, maximum efficiency. In war, it's unfortunate but you often have to disregard the needs of the enemy in favor of your own needs. Ending war as quickly as possible with as few casualties as possible should be the goal of every country involved in it. The A-bomb allowed this.

The reason atomic bombs aren't used in military operations now is due to the agreements made after WWII and the Cold War about restrictions on their usage. It's been more or less agreed that atomic bombs, while being an effective war tool, have far too much of a detrimental effect on humanity as a whole to allow common usage.

Thus, they have become a "last resort," a panic button, a trump card. While they cannot be used for standard military operations, they can be used provided the situation makes it completely necessary.

[MixMasterLar]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

Yes, even if you consider the aftereffects, I think that at that time we needed the A-bomb

Bur it's been over 60 years, can we give it a rest?

[Coolgamer]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

One was enough. The second was just to go, "Look at us, now don't %^&% with us." to the rest of the world. Unneeded overkill.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

One was enough. The second was just to go, "Look at us, now don't %^&% with us." to the rest of the world. Unneeded overkill.

Japan clearly didn't get the message after the first one, as they refused to surrender.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Cavernio]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

It's amazing how we can justify death.

[devonin]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

I think you need to look more closely at the distinction between "Justifying Death" and "Justifying a number of deaths quickly to try and prevent a much larger number of deaths much more slowly"

People who are strongly against the US use of atomic bombs on Japan often underestimate just how long, bloody and brutal a conventional war with Japan would have ended up.

After the first atomic bomb, Japan was supposed to surrender in the face of the overwhelming advantage that nuclear capability gave the US. Instead the official stance from the emperor was basically "Impressive, but I bet you only had one, so nuts to you"

The second bomb was not "unnecessary overkill" it was the only way to prove to Japan that they could keep the nukes coming, and would until they surrendered.

I can only imagine what the United States might have had to resort to if Japan had called their bluff a second time, since at that point they only -did- have the two nuclear weapons.

[MixMasterLar]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

Plus, Keep in mind this was already a long, bloody war with both Japen and Germany....why have the killings continue?

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

Germany was done for, but Japan still had a little bit of fight left in them despite the fact that the war in the Pacific was changing in favor of the Western democracies.

[devonin]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

Germany was done for, but Japan still had a little bit of fight left in them despite the fact that the war in the Pacific was changing in favor of the Western democracies.

Um...I really think you underestimate how difficult it would have been to defeat Japan via conventional warfare. They would have to have taken control basically of the entire nation top to bottom before the fighting would stop.

The US has a long history of fighting wars that have a few set piece battles, then a surrender and negotiated terms. Japan was going to go right to the end, and a war of attrition was not something the US wanted to get involved in.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

Um...I really think you underestimate how difficult it would have been to defeat Japan via conventional warfare. They would have to have taken control basically of the entire nation top to bottom before the fighting would stop.

The US has a long history of fighting wars that have a few set piece battles, then a surrender and negotiated terms. Japan was going to go right to the end, and a war of attrition was not something the US wanted to get involved in.

Hence the dropping of the bombs. I was just giving out another potential scenario. I approve of the dropping of the bombs in order to end the war quickly. I also agree with you that Japan would've fought to the very end making more casulties on both sides. However, I'd like to state that Japan would've inevitably been beaten because the States could fully concentrate on them, Russia was preparing to launch an assault, and Britain and the other western European countries just had to tie up a few loose ends with Germany before they too could take part in an assault upon Japan.

[devonin]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

I think the mere idea that Britain/France etc would have the first thing to do with an assault on Japan at all, let alone after all of the death, destruction and cost of the war with Germany is frankly ludicrous.

By the time they "Tied up loose ends" with Germany, put enough of their infrastructure back together to make any kind of major decision like that -and- managed to convince the populations of Europe that now that the Nazi threat was ended, sorry, we have to go send everyone to the other side of the planet to keep fighting, it would have been 1950.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

Hence the dropping of the bombs. I was just giving out another potential scenario. I approve of the dropping of the bombs in order to end the war quickly. I also agree with you that Japan would've fought to the very end making more casulties on both sides. However, I'd like to state that Japan would've inevitably been beaten because the States could fully concentrate on them, Russia was preparing to launch an assault, and Britain and the other western European countries just had to tie up a few loose ends with Germany before they too could take part in an assault upon Japan.

You're missing the point.

1) Japan attacked the United States.
2) The Japanese took a stance of "no surrender."
3) Invading Japan would have resulted in an enormous death toll for both the Japanese and Americans.
4) Japan was not the victim. Japan was a militant aggressor that committed acts of genocide all over mainland China.

If Japan had nuclear capabilities, do you think they would have hesitated to use it against the United States? Most likely not.

The two bombs affectively ended the war with no casualties for the Americans.

Yes, the atomic bomb was a horrible invention, but WWII was a horrible war.

Also, how many full-blown World Wars has there been since the invention of the Atomic bomb? None. There have been small regional military conflicts mostly generated to turn out a profit for munitions manufacturers, but nothing too serious (lulz). Then again, how many wars have we won since we dropped the atomic bomb? Not as many as we'd've liked seeing as they always seem to end in a stalemate with a huge body count.

Prediction: Operation Iraqi Freedom is going to end in a stalemate (or division of the land among the various ethnic groups) with a huge body count. You heard it here first.

[fido123]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

I think they should have dropped the bombs, but I think it would be better if they dropped it in the middle of a forest to just show what they had. They would look at the forest and all the trees would either be gone or be fallen in a a circler pattern collectively.

[devonin]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

Response: "What cowards, to have a weapon and be so afraid to use it on people that they destory some trees, surely we shall drive them back into the sea"

Not a good plan at all. When you're up against someone who will impale themselves on your bayonet to get close enough to stab you, you don't have the luxery of ****ing around.