Should the U.S. have used nuclear weapons against Japan in World War II ?

65 years ago, the first Atomic Bomb , aka little boy, was used in a war against another country. I'm curious to see what US and Non Americans think about this. Personally. I don't think Atomic Bombs should've been used against Japan in WW II.

Opinions ? :)

I think the atomic bomb made Japanese girls the sexy beings they are today. :oops:

Yes.

Casualties were inevitable, nuking them was the quickest/most direct route to ending the war.

Besides, nukes weren't even the greatest cause of damage. They firebombed every major Japanese city which caused huge amounts of damage and casualties, more than the nukes IIRC.

I'm undecided. I've heard the estimates on what the casualties of US soldiers would have been if we had ordered a full-scale invasion, but I also believe that the killing of innocent is never justified.

It isn't morally justified to me, but I don't think second guessing makes much sense within the context.

Yes. Easily yes.

Finally,I have come across a poll I can't answer..:?

Yes, they should have been used. Dropping the bombs brought a quick end to the war. If the US didn't drop the bombs an invasion of Japan would of been inevitable. An invasion that would have cost many more lives than the bombs.

Yes. It ended a war that needed to be ended. Japan officials needed a wakeup call.

The Japanese were flying their own planes into ships there was no way they would surrender without VERY good cause, it was nuke, or invasion.

you have to ask yourself: which is more important US troops lives, or the lives of japanese civilians. Ultimately the decision was made, and it must of taken some nerve to do so. Most non-americans frown on the action taken by the US, but I stand by them in my belief that it was the best thing to do

The Japanese were flying their own planes into ships there was no way they would surrender without VERY good cause, it was nuke, or invasion.

you have to ask yourself: which is more important US troops lives, or the lives of japanese civilians. Ultimately the decision was made, and it must of taken some nerve to do so. Most non-americans frown on the action taken by the US, but I stand by them in my belief that it was the best thing to do

Overlord93

You're right, some nerve to do so.

Nope.

I wrote a college paper on the atom bomb; but not so much about who made it and what happened. Rather it was more along the lines of "Did we know enough about what the atom bom is and what it would do, to have made an informed decision to have dropped them bomb?" And the answer, i think, is clearly no.

We didnt discover all the properties of Plutonium until a few months before dropping the bomb. No one actually had any clue as to the actual damages done until we dropped it. Standards for workig in hazardous nuclear environments were actually developed 2 years after dropping the bombs by inspecting the area.

Basically, we created an experimental weapon that no one really had an idea of what it could do beyond "a lot" and dropped it. Its pretty irresponsible of us to do so. Not to mention Japan already surrendered to us months before we even dropped the bomb, but we had refused their surrender.

Yes.

Casualties were inevitable, nuking them was the quickest/most direct route to ending the war.

Besides, nukes weren't even the greatest cause of damage. They firebombed every major Japanese city which caused huge amounts of damage and casualties, more than the nukes IIRC.

urdead18

Casualities were inevitable.. Please tell me.. Why does every one think if they didn't nuke they would have needed to invade? Japan's air force and navy were in shambles.. The military was bleeding to death, and they were already starting peace talks through Russia.. Eisenhower was completely against it as well, the Empire of Japan was defeated, all they would have had have done was blockade them alittle longer and they would have fallen.

it has been said that a full scale invasion would have resulted in even more casualties than dropping the bombs. Also, if the US had waited then the Russians would have joined the planned invasion on the US side. This may sound beneficial, however, if they had both defeated japan it is likely the country would have been separated a la post war Germany. And that would lead to even more tension between the US and The USSR, not to mention breaking a nation in two.worldsick

Except invasion was not neccesary.. When the US reached Japan shorelines the country was in shambles and its imports were cut off completely.. They would have folded under the blockade.. INFACT they were already beginning peace talks through Russia in Japan's surrender.

Impossible to say what the outcome would have been without it... It's almost guaranteed that it would have gone on for several more years, and that could have seriously crippled nations and kept them crippled for extended periods.spazzx625

Several more years? Really>? :| What would they attack the US navy with? Rowboats? Their air force and navy were destroyed.. Their many cities and industries were wiped out or were out of resources.. Infact the main reason why they attacked the United States to begin with is the embargo of oil basically making their empire only lasting for only a few years tops..

Yes, because if they didn't the outcome would have probably been a lot worse. If I remember right, it was predicted that US casualties would exceed 1 million.

Yes, because if they didn't the outcome would have probably been a lot worse. If I remember right, it was predicted that US casualties would exceed 1 million.

hedden93

Invasion was not neccesary:|

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="worldsick"]it has been said that a full scale invasion would have resulted in even more casualties than dropping the bombs. Also, if the US had waited then the Russians would have joined the planned invasion on the US side. This may sound beneficial, however, if they had both defeated japan it is likely the country would have been separated a la post war Germany. And that would lead to even more tension between the US and The USSR, not to mention breaking a nation in two.SEANMCAD

Except invasion was not neccesary.. When the US reached Japan shorelines the country was in shambles and its imports were cut off completely.. They would have folded under the blockade.. INFACT they were already beginning peace talks through Russia in Japan's surrender.

You are correct. Pus I believe 90% of the countries cities are on fire from all the fire bombing. japan was already finsihed, the bomb was just a real life test and a show to the rest of the world that we were willing to test the bomb on real people

It was much like stabbing a guy you already beat the crap out of on the ground, just to have him say uncle that much quicker... There was no legitimate military reason in using the Bomb on Japan for World War 2 purposes.. Japan was already broken and the majority of the top people including Eisenhower was opposed to it.

Yes, because if they didn't the outcome would have probably been a lot worse. If I remember right, it was predicted that US casualties would exceed 1 million.

hedden93

I seem to recall reading something where the top U.S. generals didn't think an invasion would cost many lives at all, I believe both MacArthur and Eisenhower would have preferred an invasion to the bomb. That's also assuming invasion would have been necessary at all, Japan was beat and it was only a matter of tiem until they surrendered.

[QUOTE="worldsick"]it has been said that a full scale invasion would have resulted in even more casualties than dropping the bombs. Also, if the US had waited then the Russians would have joined the planned invasion on the US side. This may sound beneficial, however, if they had both defeated japan it is likely the country would have been separated a la post war Germany. And that would lead to even more tension between the US and The USSR, not to mention breaking a nation in two.sSubZerOo

Except invasion was not neccesary.. When the US reached Japan shorelines the country was in shambles and its imports were cut off completely.. They would have folded under the blockade.. INFACT they were already beginning peace talks through Russia in Japan's surrender.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]Impossible to say what the outcome would have been without it... It's almost guaranteed that it would have gone on for several more years, and that could have seriously crippled nations and kept them crippled for extended periods.sSubZerOo

Several more years? Really>? :| What would they attack the US navy with? Rowboats? Their air force and navy were destroyed.. Their many cities and industries were wiped out or were out of resources.. Infact the main reason why they attacked the United States to begin with is the embargo of oil basically making their empire only lasting for only a few years tops..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]Impossible to say what the outcome would have been without it... It's almost guaranteed that it would have gone on for several more years, and that could have seriously crippled nations and kept them crippled for extended periods.hedden93

Several more years? Really>? :| What would they attack the US navy with? Rowboats? Their air force and navy were destroyed.. Their many cities and industries were wiped out or were out of resources.. Infact the main reason why they attacked the United States to begin with is the embargo of oil basically making their empire only lasting for only a few years tops..

Then the bomb wouldn't have stopped them to begin with if they were willing to get it done.. That no amount of destruction would have stopped them intil they were all dead.. Your claim doesn't back up to evidence.. Japan did surrender.

win at all costs

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]Impossible to say what the outcome would have been without it... It's almost guaranteed that it would have gone on for several more years, and that could have seriously crippled nations and kept them crippled for extended periods.hedden93

Several more years? Really>? :| What would they attack the US navy with? Rowboats? Their air force and navy were destroyed.. Their many cities and industries were wiped out or were out of resources.. Infact the main reason why they attacked the United States to begin with is the embargo of oil basically making their empire only lasting for only a few years tops..

That doesn't matter if they don't have the resources to fight. Japan is an island nation, they need naval supremacy to fight and their navy was utterly defeated, it was only a matter of time before they surrendered. The only thing that kept them from surrendering was the refusal of military leaders to give up fighting despite defeat, the Emperor was rallying support for a surrender and it would've happened with or without the bomb.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="worldsick"]it has been said that a full scale invasion would have resulted in even more casualties than dropping the bombs. Also, if the US had waited then the Russians would have joined the planned invasion on the US side. This may sound beneficial, however, if they had both defeated japan it is likely the country would have been separated a la post war Germany. And that would lead to even more tension between the US and The USSR, not to mention breaking a nation in two.worldsick

Except invasion was not neccesary.. When the US reached Japan shorelines the country was in shambles and its imports were cut off completely.. They would have folded under the blockade.. INFACT they were already beginning peace talks through Russia in Japan's surrender.

This is false they actually joined in the campaign before that, Feb 3rd, 1945.

[QUOTE="hedden93"]

Yes, because if they didn't the outcome would have probably been a lot worse. If I remember right, it was predicted that US casualties would exceed 1 million.

theone86

I seem to recall reading something where the top U.S. generals didn't think an invasion would cost many lives at all, I believe both MacArthur and Eisenhower would have preferred an invasion to the bomb. That's also assuming invasion would have been necessary at all, Japan was beat and it was only a matter of tiem until they surrendered.

edit: I see you already responded to my other post. Sorry I'm a slow typer :)

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="hedden93"]

Yes, because if they didn't the outcome would have probably been a lot worse. If I remember right, it was predicted that US casualties would exceed 1 million.

hedden93

I seem to recall reading something where the top U.S. generals didn't think an invasion would cost many lives at all, I believe both MacArthur and Eisenhower would have preferred an invasion to the bomb. That's also assuming invasion would have been necessary at all, Japan was beat and it was only a matter of tiem until they surrendered.

They didn't refuse surrender after Hiroshima, we gave them three days and they didn't respond. Three days is hardly enough time for the political machine to decide on an issue of surrender. They wanted to surrender, Hirohito was pushing for surrender before Hiroshima, the problem was that some military leaders were draggin their feet. By the way, we nuked Nagasaki, not Okinawa.

After the Battle of Okinawa it was clear that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would be far to costly. There were 117,000 Japanese Soldiers on Okinawa, only 7,000 of them surrendered. Given the results of previous battles with the Japanese it was clear that something drastic was necessary to force an end to the war. Given that information I would say that the use of the Atomic Bomb was warranted and ultimately did result in the end of World War 2.

Nope.. japan was going to surrender anyway and even still they dropped two instead of just one. Basically the US used japan as a real world testing ground for their two different types of experimental atom bombs. Highly irresponsible and even more despicable.

No they should not have used nuclear weapons. They should have invaded mainland japan and caused 2000 times the casualties. It's only bad if you die from a nuclear blast, dying from conventional weapons is ok in the self-righteous minds of everyone. Because hey, more people died when the allies firebombed dresden, but they didn't use nuclear weapons. When the Germans employed terror bombings on the belgians, that's ok, because it wasnt nuclear.

[QUOTE="hedden93"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I seem to recall reading something where the top U.S. generals didn't think an invasion would cost many lives at all, I believe both MacArthur and Eisenhower would have preferred an invasion to the bomb. That's also assuming invasion would have been necessary at all, Japan was beat and it was only a matter of tiem until they surrendered.

theone86

Nope.. japan was going to surrender anyway and even still they dropped two instead of just one. Basically the US used japan as a real world testing ground for their two different types of experimental atom bombs. Highly irresponsible and even more despicable.

Espada12

[QUOTE="urdead18"]

Yes.

Casualties were inevitable, nuking them was the quickest/most direct route to ending the war.

Besides, nukes weren't even the greatest cause of damage. They firebombed every major Japanese city which caused huge amounts of damage and casualties, more than the nukes IIRC.

Casualities were inevitable.. Please tell me.. Why does every one think if they didn't nuke they would have needed to invade? Japan's air force and navy were in shambles.. The military was bleeding to death, and they were already starting peace talks through Russia.. Eisenhower was completely against it as well, the Empire of Japan was defeated, all they would have had have done was blockade them alittle longer and they would have fallen.

I remember my Chinese teacher telling us that theatomic bomb on Japan was a good bomb.He was a funny guy.

I actually wrote an essay on this for school and my answer is yes. It basically comes down to Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Okinawa was a pretty big island but Iwo Jima was a pathetic little rock and they defended the **** out of it. Based on the scale of those battles and how ridiculously zealous the Japanese troops were invading mainland Japan would've very likely been a huge *****. The atomic bombs didn't save the lives of the people that they landed on but it's very likely that there were less casualties for both Japanese and Americans using the bombs then there would've been with an invasion.snowman6251

.. This is false yet again.. A) A invasion was not needed, the island was starving to death of resources to begin with.. It had no power to actually attack anything any more due to its airforce and navy gone.. B) Iwo Jima and Okinawa are not good examples.. Why? Because if they were then even after the nuclear bombs Japan wouldn't have given up.

[QUOTE="urdead18"]

Yes.

Casualties were inevitable, nuking them was the quickest/most direct route to ending the war.

Besides, nukes weren't even the greatest cause of damage. They firebombed every major Japanese city which caused huge amounts of damage and casualties, more than the nukes IIRC.

Casualities were inevitable.. Please tell me.. Why does every one think if they didn't nuke they would have needed to invade? Japan's air force and navy were in shambles.. The military was bleeding to death, and they were already starting peace talks through Russia.. Eisenhower was completely against it as well, the Empire of Japan was defeated, all they would have had have done was blockade them alittle longer and they would have fallen.

[QUOTE="hedden93"]

Yes, because if they didn't the outcome would have probably been a lot worse. If I remember right, it was predicted that US casualties would exceed 1 million.

theone86

I seem to recall reading something where the top U.S. generals didn't think an invasion would cost many lives at all, I believe both MacArthur and Eisenhower would have preferred an invasion to the bomb. That's also assuming invasion would have been necessary at all, Japan was beat and it was only a matter of tiem until they surrendered.

The complete opposite actually. The general belief among military commanders was that most of the divisions taking place in the intial attack would be completely wiped out. The estimated casualty numbers for the operation were well over 200,000 American soldiers.