Was it good that the U.S dropped the atomic bombs?

READ ON!

I completely agree that the atomic bombs should not have been dropped, but I'm wondering....was it good that we dropped them?


What I mean is that because we dropped them, we saw the destruction, and we saw the after-effects. Do you think this knowledge has prevented the united states or other countries from dropping modern bombs which are much, much more powerful? Do you think that if we hadn't dropped them, some other country might have (by now) dropped a much more powerful bomb and caused much more damage?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree.

At the time the bombs were dropped, the US was facing a Japanese nation dominated by the military, who were determined to fight to the death. Estimated casualties from an invasion of the home islands were hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions of Japanese (extrapolating from the experience of Okinawa). It appears the use of the bombs saved many American lives (which was the primary concern of the US gov't.) as well as many Japanese, and spared Japan from extreme devestation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By late 1944 Japan was militarily defeated the allies bombed Japan at will and a sea blockade was crippling the Japanese ability to feed itself let alone continue to make war . In August 1945 , 2 atomic bombs flattened 2 cities, again killing 103,000 civilians in these 2 non-military cultural centres s totally unnecessary also as now being revealed by declassified documents Japan was sending out peace feelers that it wanted to surrender .The object of the allies was to let the Communist government of Russia get a first hand view of Capitalist western power the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was to demonstrate to Communist Russia the willingness of America to use this weapon and by using 2 to show that there was more of those from where they came from . In short it was a clear and dire warning to Communist Russia not to interfere with the new post WWII world order being created by America the new leader of the Western Plutocracies .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not true what so ever. The projected casualties are misleading because the probability of invading Japan before they surrendered was incredibly small. Also, U.S Strategic Bombing Survey said that Japan would have almost certainly surrendered before November 1, 1945 without invasion, without the use of the atomic bomb, and without the Soviets entering the war.

 

Surrendered? Hell, their military basically staged a coup to prevent just that even after we dropped the bomb.
Somehow I doubt a good, clean unconditional surrender was going to be on the table without a show of force.

 

are you kidding? japan didn't even surrender after we dropped the first atomic bomb! they were still fighting us even after we decimated an entire city (mostly military and industry) with the first nuclear weapon ever used.

 

We went through all this already with a bit more depth. I am too lazy though to find that thread.

Here is some background reading
http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

 

That's the kind of thing that makes me want never to read history again, because it's the exact opposite of what almost any history book says...

 

No, it is probably just the opposite of what american schoolbooks say.

It's quite well known that Japan was on its knees and actually looking for an end. It's just that the US had the inclination that it wanted more than just an end.

 

Dropping the bombs on populated targets was reprehensible; the devastating power of the bombs could have been demonstrated on any number of virtually unpopulated locations. The canard that "it saved untold civilian and military lives in the long run" needs to be laid to rest.

As Brian Foley said, it was about more: Not only was it good data on the effects of a nuclear weapon on a populated target (from which they could extrapolate higher yield damage amounts) but it sent a very clear signal to the Soviet Union that the United States was not to be trifled with.

 

I've never seen an American schoolbook, but World Book Encyclopaedia seemed to say Japan didn't want to surrender, and that's published in Denmark

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Perhaps logistically speaking Japan should have surrendered without the atomic bomb but the evidence of the Battle of Okinawa suggests otherwise. More human lives were lost as a result of the Battle of Okinawa than as a result of the atomic bombs.
Do you honestly believe that the battle for the home island would have been less bloody than the resistance on Okinawa?

 

It is by no means certain Japan would have surrendered if not for the atomic bombs, there were many hard liners in the Japanese heiarchy, and even if they were sending out "feelers" for the feasibility for surrender, we couldn't have known if it was a trick or not, and perhaps there wasn't time to find out.

Anyway, the bombs certainly weren't good for the people underneath them, but it did contribute to ending the war more quickly.

Also, it made way for US occupation and with it, economic assistance for rebuilding, and most importantly a new way of manufacturing including rigorous quality control which led to Japanese success years later.

The occupation made Japanese familiar with the west and western culture.

It may have helped prevent nuclear warfare over the Cuban missile crisis by showing the world how terrible they can be, but we probably would have known that anyway when they were tested over the Pacific islands in the 1950's.

 

Explain to us why 2 bombs were dropped then.

 

because its all we had
i'm sure if we had 3 we would have used them

 

Indeed. If you wanted to end the war with minimal casualties you would have dropped one. Waited. And threaten to drop another one.

It was an experiment and political statement of the first order.

 

i disagree
it was the murderous bloodthirsty appetite of america that did it
we did it without cause or provocation

 

i was speaking from the hypothetical situation: if you wanted minimal casualties and a quick end of the war. Would you drop 1 or 2 bombs

1. would you threaten to drop an atomic bomb?
2. would you drop one bomb. Let it sink in. Threaten to drop another bomb.
3. would you drop 2 bombs in succession without any opportunity for surrender.
It's just not logical to me to pick option no.3.

-------


What do you think made america so bloodthirsty? Was it pearl harbor? The media? Japanese cruelties that were reported?

 

I agree with you Spurious. Why two in quick succession? Sure, it was a heated situation with lots of emotion running rampant. Sure, the atomic bomb was new. Still, why not just one devastating blast plus the threat of another?

 

in all seriousness it was a number of things

japans sneak attack on pearl harbor
the japanese diplomats stalling for time
the fanatical fighters of japan
political motivations
the money spent developing the bomb

i beleive all of those played a role