Poll: You are President Harry S. Truman, do you drop the atomic bombs on Japan?

The poll considers the decision you would make imagining yourself at that current moment in time and your feelings as to whether or not it should have been done in hindsight. For instance, choosing the "No/Yes" option means that had you been in Trumans shoes at the time you wouldn't have done it, however now looking back you feel it was the correct decision.

This makes it a bit more interesting.

If you've never heard of this event, this explains it pretty well.

yes i would . i would save more lives then i would end in the long run . a invasion and occupation of japan would cause many deaths on both sides and cause further damagage to future relations

If not, then you could expect millions of US troops dead attempting to invade Japan. From what I hear, more would have been lost in the battles resulting in not dropping the bomb.

I'd drop it. But not on top of heavily populated cities.

The lesser thecasualties, the better.

I'd drop it. But not on top of heavily populated cities.

The lesser thecasualties, the better.

nitekids2004

but ur trying to break a peoples will. do you think if they killed everyone in a small village there would be the effect needed to end the war

[QUOTE="nitekids2004"]

I'd drop it. But not on top of heavily populated cities.

The lesser thecasualties, the better.

sinpkr

but ur trying to break a peoples will. do you think if they killed everyone in a small village there would be the effect needed to end the war

It will definitely break them. It's about showing them what you "could" do if they prolong the war.

Yes, I would, for the same reason people have been mentioning, also, remember that after WWII came the Cold War if the world hadn't seen how utterly devastating the Atomic Bombs were, it would've been possible for the Soviet Union or America to attack each other with Atomic Bombs, and that wouldn't have been good.

However, I still think that the bombings of Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka were not necessary. America got too bomb crazy during WWII.

Yes, I would, for the same reason people have been mentioning, also, remember that after WWII came the Cold War if the world hadn't seen how utterly devastating the Atomic Bombs were, it would've been possible for the Soviet Union or America to attack each other with Atomic Bombs, and that wouldn't have been good.

However, I still think that the bombings of Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka were not necessary. America got too bomb crazy during WWII.

luisen123

ummm.....

[QUOTE="luisen123"]

Yes, I would, for the same reason people have been mentioning, also, remember that after WWII came the Cold War if the world hadn't seen how utterly devastating the Atomic Bombs were, it would've been possible for the Soviet Union or America to attack each other with Atomic Bombs, and that wouldn't have been good.

However, I still think that the bombings of Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka were not necessary. America got too bomb crazy during WWII.

nitekids2004

ummm.....

I think he means conventional and fire bombing

I do think they were nesisary as lots of military assets were made in those large cities, and cottage industry styIe (needed to destroy the home factories)

[QUOTE="nitekids2004"]

[QUOTE="luisen123"]

Yes, I would, for the same reason people have been mentioning, also, remember that after WWII came the Cold War if the world hadn't seen how utterly devastating the Atomic Bombs were, it would've been possible for the Soviet Union or America to attack each other with Atomic Bombs, and that wouldn't have been good.

However, I still think that the bombings of Tokyo, Kobe and Osaka were not necessary. America got too bomb crazy during WWII.

dercoo

ummm.....

I think he means conventional and fire bombing

I do think they were nesisary as lots of military assets were made in those large cities, and cottage industry styIe (needed to destroy the home factories)

My bad :P

It was a bit necessary though as the warfactories were there.

I think he means conventional and fire bombing

I do think they were nesisary as lots of military assets were made in those large cities, and cottage industry styIe (needed to destroy the home factories)

dercoo

i voted yes/yes

if i was the president, i'm sure my cabinet and i would have gone over every option multiple times and decided that this was the best one. seemed to work out pretty well also.

Yes then and now. Those who are against the use of atomic bombs in WWII do not have a proper education of the Pacific theater and the state of Japan at that time. The war was not near over, Japan was not about to surrender, and the death toll of what was already the most devastating event in human history would have been far greater had they not been used.tylergamereview

Yes/ Yes, other people have already explained it.

Yes and yes. The fact of the matter is that the Japanese people were willing to sacrifice their lives for their Emperor. Had we not dropped the bombs we would have eseentially gone into guerilla warfare with the citizen population and that would cost a hell of a lot more Allied lives, not to mention dragged for who knows how long.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

I think he means conventional and fire bombing

I do think they were nesisary as lots of military assets were made in those large cities, and cottage industry styIe (needed to destroy the home factories)

luisen123

Wars are fought up till the very end often. Can't often hold back until the end.

Tokyo was the center of Japan war effort, and had huge war factories and "cottage factories".

Meeting to decide on droping a Abomb(not a guarntied end solution) is far from reasons to avoid bombing by far the most valuable target.

Tokyo had to go for the war to end quicky.

Yes i would, a land invasion of Japan would take many more lives than the two atomic bombs

That's false. Their loss was inevitable and they knew that already. The bombs were just icing on the cake.Spellingiscool

Doesn't seem like they were that eager to surrender to me.

Yup, then I would make a public video doing something like this while it flys towards Japan.

I would drop one bomb, but on a rural town, and then I would give them 24 hours to respond after giving them a warning saying the next one would be on a much larger population.

No/No.

Though I do think there would have been a lot more bombs dropping in the 60s if the world hadn't previously witnessed the horror of it all.

[QUOTE="Spellingiscool"]That's false. Their loss was inevitable and they knew that already. The bombs were just icing on the cake.luisen123

Doesn't seem like they were that eager to surrender to me.

Nice wikipedia article. Read some literature on the matter. Spellingiscool

the fact that yes/yes is winning makes humanity lose another point in my eyes, wars have been going on for quite a while but the atomic bomb must've been the dumbest idea ever, and there is simply no excuse for it.

Wow...Its disgusting that the majority voted yes yes to killing 400000+ civillians. Do you know, in reality, Senator John Mccain appeared in a documentary about WW2, and Japan actually tried to surrender even before they were threatened by a nuclear weapon? John Mccain confirmed that the only reasons the nukes were dropped was both to test out the new weaponry, and to regress Japan as it was an extremely advanced nation at its time (And now). Seriously, how could you people be so ignorant/naive? And, btw, 100000+ soldiers dying is infinitely better than 100000 civillians dying, since Soldiers signed up for their duties in the first place

Wow...Its disgusting that the majority voted yes yes to killing 400000+ civillians. Do you know, in reality, Senator John Mccain appeared in a documentary about WW2, and Japan actually tried to surrender even before they were threatened by a nuclear weapon? John Mccain confirmed that the only reasons the nukes were dropped was both to test out the new weaponry, and to regress Japan as it was an extremely advanced nation at its time (And now). Seriously, how could you people be so ignorant/naive? And, btw, 100000+ soldiers dying is infinitely better than 100000 civillians dying, since Soldiers signed up for their duties in the first place

Nayef_shroof

i rather more of them die than us . thats like saying oh i would rather 5 of my close faimily members die then 10 random people i hate .

Yes i would. strategically speaking, alot more people would have died (soldiers and civilians) if we continued the war the conventional way. we needed to end the war in one move, and we did

to quote flash gordon: "its a rational transaction"

40,000+ lives lost, or millions

Yes i would. strategically speaking, alot more people would have died (soldiers and civilians) if we continued the war the conventional way. we needed to end the war in one move, and we did

to quote flash gordon: "its a rational transaction"

40,000+ lives lost, or millions

Neo-ganon

Better American deaths than Japanese ;)

[QUOTE="tylergamereview"]Yes then and now. Those who are against the use of atomic bombs in WWII do not have a proper education of the Pacific theater and the state of Japan at that time. The war was not near over, Japan was not about to surrender, and the death toll of what was already the most devastating event in human history would have been far greater had they not been used.Spellingiscool

No, wouldnt have done it now, and wouldnt have done it in retrospect.

Im just not too big on annihilating life on a mass scale

Idk, killing thousands of civillians seems kind of pointless.

Idk, killing thousands of civillians seems kind of pointless.

firefluff3

No, the war was already on the brink of ending. That was overkill.Spellingiscool

I'd say: "OK, listen up, scumbags. If we're gonna invade this country, we need a good game plan. Now, I have two options we can use. Number one, we run at their Capital in a single fine line, screaming at the top of our lungs! The enemy will be so flabbergasted, by the time they have a chance to regroup, we'll already be inside. Now, the inherent beauty of the single file line is that they can only kill the person in front. So if we order from least important to most important, with Leclerc de Hauteclocque being in the front and me being in the back, then we just might make it through. I'll have Churchill carry the bomb and place him right in front of me because we need someone in the back who can objectively evaluate how the plan is working. That way, if Churchill dies, I'll know we're in trouble, and immediately abort. Now don't get misty on me Stalin. We'll have already killed you and used your corpse to jam up their weapons. I think we can all agree, given our current situation, it's the perfect plan."