harry truman's use of the atomic bomb (1945)

[QUOTE="Archon_basic"][QUOTE="portej"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"] While it's true that Japan was engaged in negotiations it was likely they were willing to stall and drag out the conflict in the hopes the U.S. would lose it's resolve and agree to a more favorable cease fire. portej

You make it sound like Japan was some kind of victim here, but don't forget that they attacked the U.S. first, that they invaded China and committed countless atrocities there, and that they were not willing to accept an unconditional surrender until after two atomic bombs had been dropped on them. With all of the immense loss of life and money the U.S. suffered from the war in Japan an unconditional surrender was the only course of action, and unfortunately it took two atomic bombs to obtain that. We could not afford to let Japan keep it's military and current government and risk having to fight the same war again later on. After all World Ward 2 had cost the world there had to be unconditional surrenders on the part of Germany and Japan to ensure the war was completely over and would not resurface. So don't say we should have played nice and not bombed Japan, or given them a better treaty so we could avoid using atomic weapons. The only possible justification for not using the atomic weapons was if Japan was actually close to an unconditional surrender without the use of further force, and from what I've studied on the subject the evidence seems to suggest that they were not.

Japan would have never attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor if the United States didn't place economic sanctions and embargos on Japan. The United States brought it upon themselves. Though I have to admit... the Japanese chose to mess with a country that was way out of their league both economically and militarily.

Tell me why, exactly, it was necessary for the US to place oil embargos on Japan for their activities in Asia? Yes, Japan was expanding its territories throughout the Asia Pacific, but how does that in ANY WAY AFFECT the United States? Yes, Japan did ally itself with Nazi Germany, but was it directly harming or threatening the security of the United States? No. This is just another example in history of the United States being the World's Police Force, and intefering in the activities of other autonomous nations. Of course, it is okay when the United States expands its territory, be it through it's self-proclaimed divine "Manifest Destiny" or through imperialism in the form of the Spanish American War or Mexican American Wars. Even today, we can see the United States being the World's Police Force with its duty to democratize and "bring order" to the Middle East. The result? US soldiers lives lost unneccessarily. More hatred and resentment towards the US. More terrorist groups forming in the struggle against the United States "democratizing crusade". And in the end, nothing significant accomplished. Eventually the US will pull out, and Iraqis and Iranians will kill each other, and eventually things will restore to a natural equilibrium that would have been achieved years ago had the US only not intervened in Iraq...

So they should have just let them continue taking over the pacific? Brilliant. Japan was headed to war with them anyways. And what right did Japan have invading China?

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"]Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.tycoonmike

Saved lives period.

In the short term, yes, in the long term, not likely. Nuclear war would be far more deadly to human existance than would conventional war.

No country would dare use a nuke in this day an age.

You cannot assume that. Global politics change so fast that, for instance, today the United States is allied with the majority of the European Union, as well as Britain, tommorrow, the entire EU, including Britain, are our enemies, and are preparing to go to war with the US.

And don't give me any of that crap about the Geneva Convention, the Rules of War, or the United Nations. In the face of war, laws mean nothing, and the United Nations is an organization funded primarily by the US, both militarily and economically.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that nuclear war is a bad idea, and whatever you may think about the World leaders, they're not that stupid.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"]Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.tycoonmike

Saved lives period.

In the short term, yes, in the long term, not likely. Nuclear war would be far more deadly to human existance than would conventional war.

No country would dare use a nuke in this day an age.

You cannot assume that. Global politics change so fast that, for instance, today the United States is allied with the majority of the European Union, as well as Britain, tommorrow, the entire EU, including Britain, are our enemies, and are preparing to go to war with the US.

And don't give me any of that crap about the Geneva Convention, the Rules of War, or the United Nations. In the face of war, laws mean nothing, and the United Nations is an organization funded primarily by the US, both militarily and economically.

Not to mention the UN has turned into a place to push your own countries agenda rather than working for the interest of everybody. 

So they should have just let them continue taking over the pacific? Brilliant. Japan was headed to war with them anyways. And what right did Japan have invading China?

one4damoney

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]

[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="Carlos_Santana"]Why is it that it's seldom heard that the bomb should have been dropped, but just not in a populated area? The goal was not to kill thousands of Japanese period, but to show them how much more advanced in weaponry we were at that time. That's why they surrendered, if I'm remembering correctlyportej

I recall that only one of them was a military target, I want to say it was Hiroshima.

Military target, eh? How do you explain that 99% of casualties were civilian?

I was simply pointing out to the original poster that one of the two was a military target, with some sort of strategic value, quite frankly I don't see the difference between civilians or soldiers they're all people and they all contribute to Japans war effort in some way.

[QUOTE="Archon_basic"][QUOTE="portej"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"] While it's true that Japan was engaged in negotiations it was likely they were willing to stall and drag out the conflict in the hopes the U.S. would lose it's resolve and agree to a more favorable cease fire. portej

You make it sound like Japan was some kind of victim here, but don't forget that they attacked the U.S. first, that they invaded China and committed countless atrocities there, and that they were not willing to accept an unconditional surrender until after two atomic bombs had been dropped on them. With all of the immense loss of life and money the U.S. suffered from the war in Japan an unconditional surrender was the only course of action, and unfortunately it took two atomic bombs to obtain that. We could not afford to let Japan keep it's military and current government and risk having to fight the same war again later on. After all World Ward 2 had cost the world there had to be unconditional surrenders on the part of Germany and Japan to ensure the war was completely over and would not resurface. So don't say we should have played nice and not bombed Japan, or given them a better treaty so we could avoid using atomic weapons. The only possible justification for not using the atomic weapons was if Japan was actually close to an unconditional surrender without the use of further force, and from what I've studied on the subject the evidence seems to suggest that they were not.

Japan would have never attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor if the United States didn't place economic sanctions and embargos on Japan. The United States brought it upon themselves. Though I have to admit... the Japanese chose to mess with a country that was way out of their league both economically and militarily.

Tell me why, exactly, it was necessary for the US to place oil embargos on Japan for their activities in Asia? Yes, Japan was expanding its territories throughout the Asia Pacific, but how does that in ANY WAY AFFECT the United States? Yes, Japan did ally itself with Nazi Germany, but was it directly harming or threatening the security of the United States? No. This is just another example in history of the United States being the World's Police Force, and intefering in the activities of other autonomous nations.

No one, that's the whole point. In the development of a new weapon, be it an atomic bomb, a hydrogen bomb, or moving into the realm of sci-fi with particle beams and space cruisers, few people ever care about the long term effects that the weapon will have, and if anyone does care, it is usually, and ironically, the same scientists who created it, in some way, shape, manner, or form. 

tycoonmike

What?  I'm not sure what you're talking about.  This thread is about WWII and nothing else.  I don't particularly want to deal in speculation. FYI...The decision to use the bombs was NOT made lightly...contrary to the opinion of some OT'ers.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"]Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.Sajo7

Saved lives period.

In the short term, yes, in the long term, not likely. Nuclear war would be far more deadly to human existance than would conventional war.

No country would dare use a nuke in this day an age.

You cannot assume that. Global politics change so fast that, for instance, today the United States is allied with the majority of the European Union, as well as Britain, tommorrow, the entire EU, including Britain, are our enemies, and are preparing to go to war with the US.

And don't give me any of that crap about the Geneva Convention, the Rules of War, or the United Nations. In the face of war, laws mean nothing, and the United Nations is an organization funded primarily by the US, both militarily and economically.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that nuclear war is a bad idea, and whatever you may think about the World leaders, they're not that stupid.

And it doesn't take a genius to realize that it doesn't matter if nuclear war is a bad idea, it all depends upon the personality of the ruling class,/person. Imagine if a second Hitler were to arise (Hell, you don't, Bush is just as bad, but that's a whole different story), with his exact same personality flaws. You can be assured that during his or her reign, there would be a nuclear war. 

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

No one, that's the whole point. In the development of a new weapon, be it an atomic bomb, a hydrogen bomb, or moving into the realm of sci-fi with particle beams and space cruisers, few people ever care about the long term effects that the weapon will have, and if anyone does care, it is usually, and ironically, the same scientists who created it, in some way, shape, manner, or form.

LJS9502_basic

What? I'm not sure what you're talking about. This thread is about WWII and nothing else. I don't particularly want to deal in speculation. FYI...The decision to use the bombs was NOT made lightly...contrary to the opinion of some OT'ers.

I'm not saying it was, I'm refuting the argument that the dropping of the atomic bombs was a "good" choice. It wasn't. Then again, neither would have been an invasion. 

[QUOTE="portej"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"][QUOTE="portej"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"]

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"] While it's true that Japan was engaged in negotiations it was likely they were willing to stall and drag out the conflict in the hopes the U.S. would lose it's resolve and agree to a more favorable cease fire. Archon_basic

You make it sound like Japan was some kind of victim here, but don't forget that they attacked the U.S. first, that they invaded China and committed countless atrocities there, and that they were not willing to accept an unconditional surrender until after two atomic bombs had been dropped on them. With all of the immense loss of life and money the U.S. suffered from the war in Japan an unconditional surrender was the only course of action, and unfortunately it took two atomic bombs to obtain that. We could not afford to let Japan keep it's military and current government and risk having to fight the same war again later on. After all World Ward 2 had cost the world there had to be unconditional surrenders on the part of Germany and Japan to ensure the war was completely over and would not resurface. So don't say we should have played nice and not bombed Japan, or given them a better treaty so we could avoid using atomic weapons. The only possible justification for not using the atomic weapons was if Japan was actually close to an unconditional surrender without the use of further force, and from what I've studied on the subject the evidence seems to suggest that they were not.

Japan would have never attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor if the United States didn't place economic sanctions and embargos on Japan. The United States brought it upon themselves. Though I have to admit... the Japanese chose to mess with a country that was way out of their league both economically and militarily.

Tell me why, exactly, it was necessary for the US to place oil embargos on Japan for their activities in Asia? Yes, Japan was expanding its territories throughout the Asia Pacific, but how does that in ANY WAY AFFECT the United States? Yes, Japan did ally itself with Nazi Germany, but was it directly harming or threatening the security of the United States? No. This is just another example in history of the United States being the World's Police Force, and intefering in the activities of other autonomous nations.

I can't say any more because as it stands I'm not very informed on the subject

Can't argue with you there. LOL :lol:

[QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Sajo7"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"]Yes i agree with it, although many died as a result of it, it saved millions of Americans lives.tycoonmike

Saved lives period.

In the short term, yes, in the long term, not likely. Nuclear war would be far more deadly to human existance than would conventional war.

No country would dare use a nuke in this day an age.

You cannot assume that. Global politics change so fast that, for instance, today the United States is allied with the majority of the European Union, as well as Britain, tommorrow, the entire EU, including Britain, are our enemies, and are preparing to go to war with the US.

And don't give me any of that crap about the Geneva Convention, the Rules of War, or the United Nations. In the face of war, laws mean nothing, and the United Nations is an organization funded primarily by the US, both militarily and economically.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that nuclear war is a bad idea, and whatever you may think about the World leaders, they're not that stupid.

And it doesn't take a genius to realize that it doesn't matter if nuclear war is a bad idea, it all depends upon the personality of the ruling class,/person. Imagine if a second Hitler were to arise (Hell, you don't, Bush is just as bad, but that's a whole different story), with his exact same personality flaws. You can be assured that during his or her reign, there would be a nuclear war. 

You're really strecthing your case here, and as LJ just said, we're talking about WWII not some far-fetched pyschopath.  And quite frankly your comparison of Hitler to Bush leaves me to question your judgment on the issue.

Well, I have given my thoughts, but I would like to say something to the TC: Thank you. It's nice to have a debate around here that is more original that the average "Evolution is Real", "Do you believe in God", or "Rap is Crap" topics.Carlos_Santana

We can always count on you to lighten the mood Carlos. :)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

No one, that's the whole point. In the development of a new weapon, be it an atomic bomb, a hydrogen bomb, or moving into the realm of sci-fi with particle beams and space cruisers, few people ever care about the long term effects that the weapon will have, and if anyone does care, it is usually, and ironically, the same scientists who created it, in some way, shape, manner, or form.

tycoonmike

What? I'm not sure what you're talking about. This thread is about WWII and nothing else. I don't particularly want to deal in speculation. FYI...The decision to use the bombs was NOT made lightly...contrary to the opinion of some OT'ers.

I'm not saying it was, I'm refuting the argument that the dropping of the atomic bombs was a "good" choice. It wasn't. Then again, neither would have been an invasion.

Then, the lesser of two evils? 

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

No one, that's the whole point. In the development of a new weapon, be it an atomic bomb, a hydrogen bomb, or moving into the realm of sci-fi with particle beams and space cruisers, few people ever care about the long term effects that the weapon will have, and if anyone does care, it is usually, and ironically, the same scientists who created it, in some way, shape, manner, or form.

tycoonmike

What? I'm not sure what you're talking about. This thread is about WWII and nothing else. I don't particularly want to deal in speculation. FYI...The decision to use the bombs was NOT made lightly...contrary to the opinion of some OT'ers.

I'm not saying it was, I'm refuting the argument that the dropping of the atomic bombs was a "good" choice. It wasn't. Then again, neither would have been an invasion. 

You can't sit on the fence in war....unless you don't want to survive.  War is best ended as quickly as possible.  It was. /thread.

[QUOTE="Sajo7"]

[QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="Carlos_Santana"]Why is it that it's seldom heard that the bomb should have been dropped, but just not in a populated area? The goal was not to kill thousands of Japanese period, but to show them how much more advanced in weaponry we were at that time. That's why they surrendered, if I'm remembering correctlyportej

I recall that only one of them was a military target, I want to say it was Hiroshima.

Military target, eh? How do you explain that 99% of casualties were civilian?

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

No one, that's the whole point. In the development of a new weapon, be it an atomic bomb, a hydrogen bomb, or moving into the realm of sci-fi with particle beams and space cruisers, few people ever care about the long term effects that the weapon will have, and if anyone does care, it is usually, and ironically, the same scientists who created it, in some way, shape, manner, or form.

Articuno76

What? I'm not sure what you're talking about. This thread is about WWII and nothing else. I don't particularly want to deal in speculation. FYI...The decision to use the bombs was NOT made lightly...contrary to the opinion of some OT'ers.

I'm not saying it was, I'm refuting the argument that the dropping of the atomic bombs was a "good" choice. It wasn't. Then again, neither would have been an invasion.

Then, the lesser of two evils?

I would like to ask that if this bombing would have been done in countries of those who believe that the act of bombing was required, would they still agree that this step was necessary?(especially if they too had been affected somehow from the explosion)MFaraz_Hayat

Appeal to emotion is hardly a good defense or stance from which to wage an argument.

I would like to ask that if this bombing would have been done in countries of those who believe that the act of bombing was required, would they still agree that this step was necessary?(especially if they too had been affected somehow from the explosion)MFaraz_Hayat

This is very vague.....history is what it is..and as I said prior, I prefer not to deal in speculation.

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

Dude I just told you. I saw it on the history channel. The Japanese military, in preparation for an American assault, gave its citizens weapons to use against the troops. They would then hide. When a U.S. troop came upon them the citizen would attack them. And Japan has alot more citizens. Its their belief system. They fight to the death. And those "peace treaties" were too in favor of the Japanese.

quiglythegreat

Perhaps because they only interviewed fundamentalists who would make for good television?

Right, i'm sure the Japanese let lots of American news groups onto the mainland to ask these questions. Guess what, Japanese preparation for invasion was gathered by military intelligence. Not by the media, and they didn't even release the information to the public either.

It is inconceivable that all of Japan was ready to run into American machine gun fire.

Just like it's inconcievable that the Nazi party could obtain the necessary support from the German people to obtain total and complete power in the government. Believe it or not, you can motive a signifigant majority of a populace to participate in act of clear stupidity and self destruction.

 We're talking about Japan, not Jonestown. And even in Jonestown not everyone went along, and they were LITERALLY a cult.

You basically proved my point with this. Unless you think Japan's suffocatingly fundamentalist government was not worthy of being considered a "cult".

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]I would like to ask that if this bombing would have been done in countries of those who believe that the act of bombing was required, would they still agree that this step was necessary?(especially if they too had been affected somehow from the explosion)CaptHawkeye

Appeal to emotion is hardly a good defense or stance from which to wage an argument.

You may call it appealing to emotions my friend but it rather strengthens the argument to see that none who agree with the dropping of bomb are ready to accept that they would have supported the action if it would have harmed them! 

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]I would like to ask that if this bombing would have been done in countries of those who believe that the act of bombing was required, would they still agree that this step was necessary?(especially if they too had been affected somehow from the explosion)LJS9502_basic

This is very vague.....history is what it is..and as I said prior, I prefer not to deal in speculation.

Are you trying to imply that this whole thread is pointless? 

The US destroyed the two cities, but we also pretty much rebuilt them, so i think it was ok to use it.helium_flash

And what about the lost lives?HMMMM. I think you have chosen to overlook the casualties for obviously to you human life is of no value. Am i right? 

If America hadn't done it first, someone else would have come along and done it, which would have been alot worse.

We set a much needed precedent. 

Are you trying to imply that this whole thread is pointless? 

 

MFaraz_Hayat

No..it discussed a particular event....you are not.  You are speculatiing...and not very detailed speculation either.  :|

I'd like to make it clear to people that the logic "Truman used the bomb to scare Russia" is not true at all. Truman respected Stalin and the Soviet effort in the war. Truman never had any intention of war or even a show of power against the Russians and had every hope they would be allies in the long term future. If anyone can be blamed for the start and long term life of the Cold War, it was obviously Joseph Stalin.

I guess i do.  It's kinda hard to argue about it though since noone really knew the power of nuclear weapons.  It's like if the US dropped a nuke in Iraq, and 50 years later people were asking if they agreed with it.helium_flash

Why do people even argue about this? The bomb was dropped, nothing we can do about it, unless somebody knows how to go back in time. It was how many years ago, let's just get over it and move on.

Those stuck in the past can never hope for a future.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]The US destroyed the two cities, but we also pretty much rebuilt them, so i think it was ok to use it.MFaraz_Hayat

And what about the lost lives?HMMMM. I think you have chosen to overlook the casualties for obviously to you human life is of no value. Am i right?

I also wasn't living during that time period so i have no connection to those human lives.  Plus, we built hospitals and tried to save lives afterward.

The ends justify the means i guess. 

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]I would like to ask that if this bombing would have been done in countries of those who believe that the act of bombing was required, would they still agree that this step was necessary?(especially if they too had been affected somehow from the explosion)MFaraz_Hayat

Appeal to emotion is hardly a good defense or stance from which to wage an argument.

You may call it appealing to emotions my friend but it rather strengthens the argument to see that none who agree with the dropping of bomb are ready to accept that they would have supported the action if it would have harmed them! 

Strawman, ad hominem, and more appeal to emotion? Come back when you can debate properly.

You can talk statistics all you want. It happened. It was a very different time period than it is now with very different opinions. We cant even begin to try to put ourselves in the presidents or anyone else's shoes at the time. There was a very long very terrible war going on at the time. As for whether it was right or not who knows. Maybe it was the right thing to do, maybe we should of thrown tons of soldiers out there and gotten the job that way, maybe we should of fire bombed instead. Who  knows.  Just try to use it as an example for the future. just be glad it was the only time it's been used.

Moeror 

 1. Invaded them, Darth_Tyrev

You are aware that initial day casualties were estimated to be greater than the first few weeks of Operation Overlord right? Hey, if you want to explain to your country why didn't end the war in one swift stroke, be my guest.

 2. Invited the emperor or ambassador or w/e over here and we demonstrate it to them,

The Emperor is moot. The military government was in control of the country. An ambassador would be from them, and you're kidding yourself if you think a demonstration would change their minds.

 3. We drop it in an all rural area of Japan just to show it to them.

The bomb was not intended to outright end the war. No one in Truman's cabinet, not even the science team that built it, thought it would end the war. Dropping it in the middle of nowhere would be considered a massive waste of military resources.

 

We had a lot of better options,

 

Only in your suffocating mind of political correctness.

Truman took the easiest one.

Why shouldn't he? Are you implying that Truman seriously SHOULD make everyone's lives harder by allowing the war to go on for another few years? Truman was a war veteran himself you know.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]I would like to ask that if this bombing would have been done in countries of those who believe that the act of bombing was required, would they still agree that this step was necessary?(especially if they too had been affected somehow from the explosion)CaptHawkeye

Appeal to emotion is hardly a good defense or stance from which to wage an argument.

You may call it appealing to emotions my friend but it rather strengthens the argument to see that none who agree with the dropping of bomb are ready to accept that they would have supported the action if it would have harmed them!

Strawman, ad hominem, and more appeal to emotion? Come back when you can debate properly.

Is this what i think it is? A person having no reply to the original question! 

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]The US destroyed the two cities, but we also pretty much rebuilt them, so i think it was ok to use it.helium_flash

And what about the lost lives?HMMMM. I think you have chosen to overlook the casualties for obviously to you human life is of no value. Am i right?

I also wasn't living during that time period so i have no connection to those human lives. Plus, we built hospitals and tried to save lives afterward.

The ends justify the means i guess.

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]I would like to ask that if this bombing would have been done in countries of those who believe that the act of bombing was required, would they still agree that this step was necessary?(especially if they too had been affected somehow from the explosion)MFaraz_Hayat

Appeal to emotion is hardly a good defense or stance from which to wage an argument.

You may call it appealing to emotions my friend but it rather strengthens the argument to see that none who agree with the dropping of bomb are ready to accept that they would have supported the action if it would have harmed them!

Strawman, ad hominem, and more appeal to emotion? Come back when you can debate properly.

Is this what i think it is? A person having no reply to the original question! 

What question? Your entire question is based on a speculative outcome which we are given little detail and description of the situation precluding its use. We have no idea how the public would have reacted, how it would responded or what changes history would have gone through. It's not a valid "what if" scenario.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]The US destroyed the two cities, but we also pretty much rebuilt them, so i think it was ok to use it.MFaraz_Hayat

And what about the lost lives?HMMMM. I think you have chosen to overlook the casualties for obviously to you human life is of no value. Am i right?

I also wasn't living during that time period so i have no connection to those human lives. Plus, we built hospitals and tried to save lives afterward.

The ends justify the means i guess.

Your analogy makes no sense at all. The bomb is a military resource being applied to a military situation. Your analogy makes them sound like they are unrelated.

If you are trying to imply that the bomb used "unessesary" force, then I suggest you rethink your scenario.

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]I would like to ask that if this bombing would have been done in countries of those who believe that the act of bombing was required, would they still agree that this step was necessary?(especially if they too had been affected somehow from the explosion)CaptHawkeye

Appeal to emotion is hardly a good defense or stance from which to wage an argument.

You may call it appealing to emotions my friend but it rather strengthens the argument to see that none who agree with the dropping of bomb are ready to accept that they would have supported the action if it would have harmed them!

Strawman, ad hominem, and more appeal to emotion? Come back when you can debate properly.

Is this what i think it is? A person having no reply to the original question!

What question? Your entire question is based on a speculative outcome which we are given little detail and description of the situation precluding its use. We have no idea how the public would have reacted, how it would responded or what changes history would have gone through. It's not a valid "what if" scenario.

You know what (even if for sake of argument i agree with you) heck you cannot stop me from posting and i didn't ask you to answer if you want well, you can. Be it speculation or any garbage. 

Harry Truman had the chance the end the war with out losing more American lives.

An invasion was calculated to cost millions of more lives, with the majority of those being Japanese anyways.  To put it into perspective, Japan didn't surrender after the first one dropped, and not until 3 days after the second one. 

They were in no shape to surrender before dropping them.  A land invasion would have insued destroying far more in Japan.  If anything the Japanese should be thankful we used them forcing their military to surrender.

Yes it was necessary for that to happen.

 One it would end the attacks from Japan, cubeman

It wasn't actually intended to "end" the attacks. It was intended to make the US invasion a little less painfull.

 and they had it coming after they decided to attack Pearl Harbor.

Is this your logic for the use of the bomb? Please. Believe it or not, no personal "vendetta" was harbored in Truman or any of his cabinet during the weapon's use. It was a tactical warhead designed to destroy what remained of Japan's military infrastructure.

 It also sent a message that we are not a weak county and will attack back with heavy force. 

That point had been well established to foriegn powers by the time of D-Day. Although I admit Japan payed little heed to it.

 Japanese Admiril Isoroku Yamamoto was even expecting someting bad when he said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Well, he did spend a good amount of his youth here. He did witness first hand American industrial capacity and resolve. It was no surprise to him that the United States was able to obtain total supremacy over the Japanese in a long term war. His goal, like other intelligent Japanese commanders, was to conquer and destroy the Pacific Fleet before it could be directly backed by US infrastructure. He failed.

[QUOTE="cubeman"]Yes it was necessary for that to happen.

 One it would end the attacks from Japan, CaptHawkeye

It wasn't actually intended to "end" the attacks. It was intended to make the US invasion a little less painfull.

 and they had it coming after they decided to attack Pearl Harbor.

Is this your logic for the use of the bomb? Please. Believe it or not, no personal "vendetta" was harbored in Truman or any of his cabinet during the weapon's use. It was a tactical warhead designed to destroy what remained of Japan's military infrastructure.

 It also sent a message that we are not a weak county and will attack back with heavy force. 

That point had been well established to foriegn powers by the time of D-Day. Although I admit Japan payed little heed to it.

 Japanese Admiril Isoroku Yamamoto was even expecting someting bad when he said "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Well, he did spend a good amount of his youth here. He did witness first hand American industrial capacity and resolve. It was no surprise to him that the United States was able to obtain total supremacy over the Japanese in a long term war. His goal, like other intelligent Japanese commanders, was to conquer and destroy the Pacific Fleet before it could be directly backed by US infrastructure. He failed.

Look at the bold and underlined, I never said he did.:? And what is your point on commenting on the things I said? Are you trying to make yourself sound smart or what? Because all it seems you did was just throw some input in just to critize. You aren't impressing anyone here. And if you are trying to educate me you aren't, I know a lot about WWII and wars in general.

 Look at the bold and underlined, I never said he did.

True. Point surrendered. But the idea that the Japanese "had it coming" is somewhat offensive.

And what is your point on commenting on the things I said? Are you trying to make yourself sound smart or what?

Silly me, I must have completely missed the point of a "discussion forum".

 Because all it seems you did was just throw some input in just to critize. You aren't impressing anyone here. 

Since when am I trying to "impress" people on an internet website? This discussion is between us.  

 And if you are trying to educate me you aren't, I know a lot about WWII and wars in general.

I hope you don't think vengeance is EVER a good thing to base a military strategy on.