did the u.s.have to drop the bomb?

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by YukisUke

Less lives lost I say. When they dropped the bombs on Japan, more than a million lives were lost in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If there were troops that went in incognito to catch the criminals that caused PH, only some lives would have been lost.

I think you are confusing 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was an orchestrated, all-out attack by the military of Japan. There were no criminals to go after, no terrorist cells that were hiding in Japan. Japan itself declared war on America. So just who would you hunt down, the entire leadership and military of Japan? On their home islands? And how are a bunch of American soldiers supposed to infiltrate Japan anyway? We don't exactly blend in, as you'll see if you go to Japan. Finally, as was said, it was (tens of) thousands that died in the bombings, not millions. Millions would have died had we invaded. A covert mission of a small force of American soldiers infiltrating Japan to kill or capture all the leadership and military of the country is so preposterous it can't be taken as a viable alternative.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Yuna7780

We were talking about this in US history during this last summer school...

In my opinion, I think that it was dropped for the reason of speeding up the war. If we had not dropped it, the war would be more costly in American lives and American money.

Basically, Truman saved more American lives, but the Japanese were substituted to make Victory in Pacific.

Though, at this point because of island hopping methods, we did trap the Japanese onto their original homeland... but I'm ONLY guessing that maybe the same amount of lives lost in the bombings would happen in "general" warfare if we didn't.

But I don't think a second bomb was really necessary...

I also think the idea of Pearl Harbor kind of comes in mind with the choice of bombing. The Japanese did a surprise attack with bombs and airforce in Hawaii... so the idea of revenge may come back up?

Japan refused to surrender after Hiroshima. They didn't believe we had any more atomic bombs, and they were unanimously in favor of continuing the war after Hiroshima was destroyed.

So we used our final bomb to destroy Nagasaki, but lied and told them we had many more, and would destroy city after city until they surrendered. Even then, it was an even 50/50 split, with half the Japanese leadership wanting to keep fighting, and the Emperor broke the tie in favor of surrender.

[YukisUke]

Originally Posted by samurai007

I think you are confusing 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was an orchestrated, all-out attack by the military of Japan. There were no criminals to go after, no terrorist cells that were hiding in Japan. Japan itself declared war on America. So just who would you hunt down, the entire leadership and military of Japan? On their home islands? And how are a bunch of American soldiers supposed to infiltrate Japan anyway? We don't exactly blend in, as you'll see if you go to Japan. Finally, as was said, it was (tens of) thousands that died in the bombings, not millions. Millions would have died had we invaded. A covert mission of a small force of American soldiers infiltrating Japan to kill or capture all the leadership and military of the country is so preposterous it can't be taken as a viable alternative.

I admit you have a valid point, but I would rather that than to have dropped a bomb on innocent civilians. What would you have suggested if you were in that time period? Cause i'm at a lost.

[Yuna7780]

Another interesting thing I forgot to mention in my previous post...

It boggles my mind that when Roosevelt was in office he did not tell Truman about the Manhattan Project or the test bombings they conducted. So when Truman got the office he was completely oblivious beforehand...

If FDR lived until the end of WWII, I think he would have bombed Japan too.

[Yuna7780]

Originally Posted by samurai007

Japan refused to surrender after Hiroshima. They didn't believe we had any more atomic bombs, and they were unanimously in favor of continuing the war after Hiroshima was destroyed.

So we used our final bomb to destroy Nagasaki, but lied and told them we had many more, and would destroy city after city until they surrendered. Even then, it was an even 50/50 split, with half the Japanese leadership wanting to keep fighting, and the Emperor broke the tie in favor of surrender.

Ahhh. I completely forgot about that. But, I think they were instilled with fear, but weren't sure of other bombs.

But even if we didn't have the second bomb, I think the Japanese would have still gone downhill to surrendering in the near future.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by YukisUke

I admit you have a valid point, but I would rather that than to have dropped a bomb on innocent civilians. What would you have suggested if you were in that time period? Cause i'm at a lost.

Exactly what was done, drop the bombs.

If we had many atomic bombs, instead of just the 2 left after the test bomb in New Mexico, I'd say go ahead and give a demonstration offshore, and if/when that didn't work, bomb the cities. and military centers.

But with only 2 bombs and many months until we could build more, and knowing how willing the Japanese were to fight to the death, I say that as terrible as it was, we did the best thing to end the war as quickly and with as few lives lost as possible.

Plus, IMO the lessons learned at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a very stark warning to America and the USSR, and caused both to not be willing to use nukes throughout the cold war. Had the bombs never been used, and the horrors of it seen on real people, I think both the US and USSR would have been a little less reluctant to use their nukes, and then the result would have been far more disastrous than 2 cities lost.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Yuna7780

Ahhh. I completely forgot about that. But, I think they were instilled with fear, but weren't sure of other bombs.

But even if we didn't have the second bomb, I think the Japanese would have still gone downhill to surrendering in the near future.

I think they would have held out for quite a few more months, and with the fighting going on daily and the USSR declaring war and invading Manchuria, and the planned invasion of Kyushu by the US, the end result would have been many more dead people after months more of the war than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[YukisUke]

Originally Posted by samurai007

Exactly what was done, drop the bombs.

If we had many atomic bombs, instead of just the 2 left after the test bomb in New Mexico, I'd say go ahead and give a demonstration offshore, and if/when that didn't work, bomb the cities. and military centers.

But with only 2 bombs and many months until we could build more, and knowing how willing the Japanese were to fight to the death, I say that as terrible as it was, we did the best thing to end the war as quickly and with as few lives lost as possible.

Plus, IMO the lessons learned at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a very stark warning to America and the USSR, and caused both to not be willing to use nukes throughout the cold war. Had the bombs never been used, and the horrors of it seen on real people, I think both the US and USSR would have been a little less reluctant to use their nukes, and then the result would have been far more disastrous than 2 cities lost.

Are you sure you would have told them to drop the bombs?? Just like that?? Well you know best I suppose.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by YukisUke

Are you sure you would have told them to drop the bombs?? Just like that?? Well you know best I suppose.

That's just my opinion, but yeah, given the situation as it was, I'd say drop them. If even 1 Japanese leader changed their mind and figured America was bluffing or weak because they wasted a bomb on a demonstration, etc, then the war would have continued, the invasion would have gone ahead, and millions more would have died.

The other option was a negotiated surrender which would have kept the militaristic Japanese leadership in charge of the country, kept Japanese control over some of its empire, etc. Had that happened, Japan would not be the peaceful, democratic country it is today, but instead a military dictatorship. Chances are we'd have gone to war with them again after they rearmed and regrouped, just as we fought Germany again 20 years after WW1 because we didn't change the country and rebuild it as a democracy as we did with the Marshall Plan after WW2.

[Nyororin]

Innocent civilians were killed by dropping the bomb. Yes, it`s tragic...

But who do you think would have been fighting to defend homes, etc, if there had been an invasion of Japan itself? There is no doubt in my mind that anyone old enough to hold a pointy stick and run with it would have been out there fighting.
Even with a weapon in their hands, these are civilians. Even the Japanese military was floundering (read my long posts back a few pages) and pulling men from pretty much anywhere and sending them out to fight. They too were essentially civilians.

I don`t think that at the time the bombs were dropped they knew exactly how significant the lasting effects would be. Had that been an issue, maybe - just maybe - it would have been reconsidered. But I personally believe that while it is horrible that so many people died... It honestly would have been worse. Those in power would have pretty much used the entire population of Japan as fodder to keep the war going.