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

While they did prevent the death of millions of US soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians, it also caused the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. I think the more appropriate usage would have been to drop 5 or 6 nukes onto military bases or military assets. They chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki to test the capabilities on a civilian populations which was barbaric. Skullsoldi3r

I agree with this.

While they did prevent the death of millions of US soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians, it also caused the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. I think the more appropriate usage would have been to drop 5 or 6 nukes onto military bases or military assets. They chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki to test the capabilities on a civilian populations which was barbaric. Skullsoldi3r

[QUOTE="Skullsoldi3r"]While they did prevent the death of millions of US soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians, it also caused the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians. I think the more appropriate usage would have been to drop 5 or 6 nukes onto military bases or military assets. They chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki to test the capabilities on a civilian populations which was barbaric. gameguy6700

It ended the war... But I'm against nuclear weaponry, it's pure lack of sportsmanship at war.rmfd341

Sportsmanship in war? Seriously?

Whether or not dropping the bomb on Japan was material to their surrender or whether it cost or saved lives in WWII is irrelevant.

Having pursued the ultimate weapon, humans were going to test it at least once. It is naive to believe otherwise. If not Japan, then it would have been against the Russkies, or Korea....or use your imagination.

Virtually any scenario other than Japan would have been worse. Don't be fooled. Either the West or the Russkies by 1949/1950 would have used it. And no one actually knew exactly what would happen.

And BTW, all the quotes from the US generals/admirals are all after the fact. We don't know exactly what they would have done. After the fact, in the years immediately afterwards there was a tremendous amount of angst and guilt. In those days,virtually no one would have said 'oh, yeah I was all for nuking them'.

yes, because it ended the war which saved lives of both US and Japan

And BTW, all the quotes from the US generals/admirals are all after the fact. We don't know exactly what they would have done. After the fact, in the years immediately afterwards there was a tremendous amount of angst and guilt. In those days,virtually no one would have said 'oh, yeah I was all for nuking them'.

SUD123456

Nor is the idea this all happened after the fact true either, individuals like MacArthur and Eisenhower were noted as being unhappy at the time of the bombing. For example:

Fleet Admiral Nimitz, 1945 at a public address in Washington:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.

Admiral Halsey, publicly in 1946:

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japanese, but the Japanese had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before.

General MacArthur's pilot noted the day after the bombing:

General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster [the bomb]. I had a long talk with him today, necessitated by the impending trip to Okinawa.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]And BTW, all the quotes from the US generals/admirals are all after the fact. We don't know exactly what they would have done. After the fact, in the years immediately afterwards there was a tremendous amount of angst and guilt. In those days,virtually no one would have said 'oh, yeah I was all for nuking them'.

Danm_999

Generals you will find always want to fight. And I'd imagine most of those generals were not privvy to what would have been cIassified information. The general in charge...Marshall if I recall...preferred conventional fighting but he did not actively campaign against dropping the bombs. As for the others.....that's all after the fact analysis and I wouldn't put too much stock into it. Particularly when they felt they could beat Japan the old fashioned way.LJS9502_basic

Yes, Marshall was one of the bomb's proponents.

However, what I'm trying to stress is that according to sources, several military personnel were of the opinion, at the time, that the bomb wasn't necessary. Of these opponents, several based that opposition on the belief that Japan was ready to surrender (a belief which was cultivated by interception of Japanese communications, which the military was conducting, and thus would have been privy to).

This topic often gets painted away as a revisionist fantasy, when in fact behind closed doors several key people were extremely anxious and hesistant about using atomic weapons (and in all honesty, how couldn't they be?)

This topic is also one of those topics I feel can't be conclusively answered one way or the other. I just thank goodness this sort of decision was never on me.

While I don't agree with developing the Bomb, nor do I condone the use of it, I must admit that dropping it on Japan was better than not dropping it. Millions more would have died as the US landed on Japan and slowly pushed its way inland, burning everything they came across.Acemaster27

Yes. The Japanese, with their Bushido code, would have fought to the bitter end otherwise.

[QUOTE="Acemaster27"]While I don't agree with developing the Bomb, nor do I condone the use of it, I must admit that dropping it on Japan was better than not dropping it. Millions more would have died as the US landed on Japan and slowly pushed its way inland, burning everything they came across.Danm_999

The Japanese of that time with their primitive blind loyalty would drag the war on until the last of them are dead. These are the people who got their civillains to commit sucide instead of surrendering to american troops, sended over a thousand kamikaze planes, and needed 2 atomic bombs to surrender when any sane human being would have given up after the first. But maybe "sane" is too generous of a word to use on Axis leaders.

Anyone with even a basic amount of military history in their head can tell you that the two bombs were nothing compared to what America would have done if Japan hadn't surrendered when they did. I honestly wonder how those that voted 'no' would have viewed a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, where American casualties were predicted to be in the MILLIONS, and the Japanese had instructed schoolchildren to strap explosives to themselves prior to throwing their own tiny bodies underneath the treads of Sherman tanks. Yeah, I think I'll take the two nukes and a Japan that doesn't get invaded, thank you.

President Harry S. Truman wrote, "I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."

Eleanor Roosevelt spoke in support of this view in 1954, saying that Truman had "made the only decision he could," and that the bomb's use was necessary "to avoid tremendous sacrifice of American lives."

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Generals you will find always want to fight. And I'd imagine most of those generals were not privvy to what would have been cIassified information. The general in charge...Marshall if I recall...preferred conventional fighting but he did not actively campaign against dropping the bombs. As for the others.....that's all after the fact analysis and I wouldn't put too much stock into it. Particularly when they felt they could beat Japan the old fashioned way.Danm_999

Yes, Marshall was one of the bomb's proponents.

However, what I'm trying to stress is that according to sources, several military personnel were of the opinion, at the time, that the bomb wasn't necessary. Of these opponents, several based that opposition on the belief that Japan was ready to surrender (a belief which was cultivated by interception of Japanese communications, which the military was conducting, and thus would have been privy to).

This topic often gets painted away as a revisionist fantasy, when in fact behind closed doors several key people were extremely anxious and hesistant about using atomic weapons (and in all honesty, how couldn't they be?)

This topic is also one of those topics I feel can't be conclusively answered one way or the other. I just thank goodness this sort of decision was never on me.

No. Too many civilian casualties. Too inhumane. Too brutal. But of course the Americans are for it....Crimsader

Oh i guarantee you its not just the Americans who were glad that the bombs were dropped.

They were warned, I guess. Plus, the alternative would have been a bloody assault against hunfreds of thousands of Japanese troops on the mainland.

It did end the war, but it was still wrong to kill that many innocent people who were being lied to by the Japanese government. The guy who dropped the bomb still thinks it was the right thing to do and still thinks he is getting to heaven. It is wrong to kill any innocent person.

It did end the war, but it was still wrong to kill that many innocent people who were being lied to by the Japanese government. The guy who dropped the bomb still thinks it was the right thing to do and still thinks he is getting to heaven. It is wrong to kill any innocent person.

iginlawasup

The Japanese were a lost cause. The peoplewere so blindly loyal to the emperor they would willinglykill their children for him, evidenced by the mass sucide on the emperors orders. Yes its sad the innocent citizens were so brainwashed. But not dropping the bombs would mean prolonging the war, risking not just American troops but those of the Allies and the people dying in Japanese occupied countries. Why do other nations have to pay for the Japanese's screw up?

If we didn't use them, we probably wouldn't have realized how terrible nuclear weapons were and we might have had a nuclear war, so it was probably for the best.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Acemaster27"]While I don't agree with developing the Bomb, nor do I condone the use of it, I must admit that dropping it on Japan was better than not dropping it. Millions more would have died as the US landed on Japan and slowly pushed its way inland, burning everything they came across.Zerocrossings

The Japanese of that time with their primitive blind loyalty would drag the war on until the last of them are dead. These are the people who got their civillains to commit sucide instead of surrendering to american troops, sended over a thousand kamikaze planes, and needed 2 atomic bombs to surrender when any sane human being would have given up after the first. But maybe "sane" is too generous of a word to use on Axis leaders.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Generals you will find always want to fight. And I'd imagine most of those generals were not privvy to what would have been cIassified information. The general in charge...Marshall if I recall...preferred conventional fighting but he did not actively campaign against dropping the bombs. As for the others.....that's all after the fact analysis and I wouldn't put too much stock into it. Particularly when they felt they could beat Japan the old fashioned way.LJS9502_basic

Yes, Marshall was one of the bomb's proponents.

However, what I'm trying to stress is that according to sources, several military personnel were of the opinion, at the time, that the bomb wasn't necessary. Of these opponents, several based that opposition on the belief that Japan was ready to surrender (a belief which was cultivated by interception of Japanese communications, which the military was conducting, and thus would have been privy to).

This topic often gets painted away as a revisionist fantasy, when in fact behind closed doors several key people were extremely anxious and hesistant about using atomic weapons (and in all honesty, how couldn't they be?)

This topic is also one of those topics I feel can't be conclusively answered one way or the other. I just thank goodness this sort of decision was never on me.

The peoplewere so blindly loyal to the emperor they would willinglykill their children for him, evidenced by the mass sucide on the emperors orders. Zerocrossings

If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. Silenthps

While I don't agree with developing the Bomb, nor do I condone the use of it, I must admit that dropping it on Japan was better than not dropping it. Millions more would have died as the US landed on Japan and slowly pushed its way inland, burning everything they came across.Acemaster27

.. Ampibious assault was not neccesary on Japan.. Japan's military was in shambles, and so was their industry.. All they had to do was blockade the country and Japan could do nothing about it.. And they would have soon surrendered based on the fact that Japan was already trying to find a way out of the war to begin with.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. Danm_999

If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. Silenthps

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. fartwrangler

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. Silenthps

I'm saying use of atomic weapons was a difficult decision. Japan hadn't surrendered, but it seemed possible they would have without the use of atomic weapons and without a ground invasion.Danm_999

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. fartwrangler

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. LJS9502_basic

I think the US should have just surrenderd. They would have saved all those lives. Same with the UK.

If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. Silenthps

And quite simply, I value an American soldier's life more than 200,000 Japanese civilians.

I think the US should have just surrenderd. They would have saved all those lives. Same with the UK.

sonicare

[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"] The peoplewere so blindly loyal to the emperor they would willinglykill their children for him, evidenced by the mass sucide on the emperors orders. Danm_999

Ordering citizens to commit suicide would've caused an uproar, the Citizens were loyal but, though a few might've been, they weren't fanatics. That's just propaganda.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="Zerocrossings"] The peoplewere so blindly loyal to the emperor they would willinglykill their children for him, evidenced by the mass sucide on the emperors orders. Treflis

Ordering citizens to commit suicide would've caused an uproar, the Citizens were loyal but, though a few might've been, they weren't fanatics. That's just propaganda.

I mean considering what the Japanese did to China during WWII it kinda seems like karma kicking in.lilasianwonder

If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. Silenthps

There was no way to conventionally wage a war against Japan after they decimated our Navy.

Nuclear weapons were the only option.