Should the US have Dropped "The Bombs" on Japan?

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Would that be like saying the only way to stop Japan in WW2 was to drop nukes on them even though it killed a lot of innocent people?

No not in anyway.

Dropping nukes on japan to end WWII was the best choice. It saved a lot of OUR soldiers lives. War is ugly boohoo seriously the world isn't black & white. We decided to blow up two cities instead of sending literally hundreds of thousands of OUR troops to their death on a Island with a enemy civilian or otherwise ready to die fighting to the death every single one.

 

[Splinters]

No not in anyway. Lol

Dropping nukes on japan to end WWII was the best choice. It saved a lot of OUR soldiers lives. War is ugly boohoo seriously the world isn't black & white. We decided to blow up two cities instead of sending literally hundreds of thousands of OUR troops to their death on a Island with a enemy civilian or otherwise ready to die fighting to the death every single one.

The conundrum is that Japan probably would've surrendered anyways. The Soviets were turning their gaze on them after Germany was finished, and the Japanese are WAAAAAAY more scared of the Soviets than the US. Truman failed to understand the weapon he was using, and because of that, two hundred thousand people died. Sure, it may have saved American lives, and from a purely logical view, the decision made sense, but it still killed all those people.

My friends family was deeply affected by the bombings. I can tell you that it provides them no comfort that American *soldiers* were saved at the expense of Japanese *civilians*.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

can tell you that it provides them no comfort that American *soldiers* were saved at the expense of Japanese *civilians*.

It provides me comfort knowing we didn't have to send any more of our men to die brutally on a Island where the entire population was indoctrinated (women/children) near the end.

 

[Splinters]

It provides me comfort knowing we didn't have to send any more of our men to die brutally on a Island where the entire population was indoctrinated (women/children) near the end.

Even at the expense of thousands of men, women and children? It's different for soldiers, the job comes with putting your life on the line. Those people didn't make that choice.

Would it be acceptable for Putin to nuke Kyiv? I mean, it certainly would save thousands of Russian soldiers lives. If we say it's okay to use these weapons in order to save our soldiers lives, the same has to be true for our enemies too. I don't think there is an acceptable or justifiable reason for these bombings, because it was a mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people. You can't justify that to me by saying it saved American soldiers at the cost of all those innocent people. Granted, I doubt an invasion would be bloodless, but atleast there would've been a chance for some damage control.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Would it be acceptable for Putin to nuke Kyiv? I mean, it certainly would save thousands of Russian soldiers lives.

Putin started the war by choice. We where not given a choice to be involved in WWII. You remember the whole surprise attack pearl harbor thing? So no.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Not that it makes things any better but we help rebuild them into a economic power house.

 

[Splinters]

Putin stated the war by choice. We where not given a choice to be involved in WWII. So no.

We weren't given a choice to fight, no. But, we did have a choice when it came to nuking Japan. I don't feel like there is a justification in saying they "forced our hand" by not simply surrendering. These weapons should've never been used, maybe we would be in a much better world if they hadn't.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

These weapons should've never been used, maybe we would be in a much better world if they hadn't.

We would be still stuck where we are. Russia was already in the works of making their own nukes durring and shortly there after the Manhattan Project.

Then China would get nukes because USSR had them, then India would get them because of China, and so on and so fourth nothint would of changed.

Secondly we would not know the true effects of nuclear weapons either. So leaders would be mildly blind to the raw destructive nature of the Atom Bomb if it where not dropped on two cities if we want to look at a silver lining...

 

[Splinters]

We would be still stuck where we are. Russia was already in the works of making their own nukes durring and shortly there after the Manhattan Project.

Secondly we wouldn't know the true effects of nuclear weapons either. So leaders would be mildly blind to the raw destructive nature of the Atom.

You're probably right. History is unpredictable.

As for your second point there, I would disagree. While we did undoubtly learn from watching the aftermath, I would say our nuclear knowledge came from the thousands of tests we did in the decades following the bombings. Not really incredibly relevant to the bombings themselves though.

I feel like you can only really justify the bombings through the lense of an American. We can morally justify it to ourselves by valuing our American soldiers more than we value Japanese civilians. While that's logical, it's extremely cold as well.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

While that's logical, it's extremely cold as well.

War is ugly and cold. Only way to win is to get bloody.

 

[Splinters]

War is ugly and cold. Only way to win is to get bloody.

My issue is with that it didn't have to happen. It was the choice that costed us the least, and benefited us in innumerable ways, but it wasn't the only one we had.

But like you said, war is ugly and cold. I just think that it's really abhorrent when you go out of your way to kill civilians. Of course that wasn't the point if the bombings, really, but they were civilian targets.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

really abhorrent when you go out of your way to kill civilians.

Of course! But I don't see it that way logically if you apply your comment to dropping the atom bombs on japan to quickly end the war. A war we had no choice in. We ended the war in Europe, we didn't want to fight another long one over another vast ocean.

 

[Splinters]

Of course! But I don't see it that way logically if you apply your comment to dropping the atom bombs on japan to quickly end the war. A war we had no choice in.

Perhaps I'm just thinking too morally or too personally. I understand keeping the war going for longer would just cost everyone more in the end, but I still don't know how to feel about basically making those cities our sacrificial lambs.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

but I still don't know how to feel about basically making those cities our sacrificial lambs.

It was a different time back then. If we know or had what we have now things would of been different. But the 1940's and military strategy is completely alien compared to today.

Hell even if there was any kind of real news or media back then things would of been different. Or things would of been handled differently perhaps.

 

[Splinters]

It was a different time back then. If we know or had what we have now things would of been different. But the 1940's and military strategy is completely alien compared to today.

Yeah, on that much I agree.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

There were multiple factors that went into the dropping of the bomb. Also, put yourself in Truman's shoes:
- You have recently tested a game changing weapon that you have poured stupid amounts of money into
- You have projected casualties from an invasion of Japan that look horrible, for both sides
- You and the Japanese have been using brutal methods against each other.
- You have been at war for a while now, and the prospect of ending it seems just a bomb away.
- Also, how are the effects any different from the mass dropping of incendiary bombs? It just means you have more oompf in a smaller package. (I know there are major differences, but remember I'm trying to view this from Truman's shoes)
==========================================
Now it's easy to see with hindsight that Truman didn't HAVE to drop the bomb as the Soviets probably would've forced Japan's surrender (Also this would have led to yet another Soviet-run state), but Truman didn't know this with certainty, he didn't have the benefit of hindsight. What he did have were casualty projections that make the eyes water and here comes a method which means no boots on the Japanese mainland, a massive reduction in casualties and a shorter war.

Faced with the same information as Truman, I'd pick the bomb over invasion. With hindsight, I would probably wait it out.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Also many people seem to forget more Japanese civilians died to conventional bombing than nuclear bombing, so it wasn't that much of a leap to use nukes, in terms of civilian casualties.

 

[Obreid]

The conundrum is that Japan probably would've surrendered anyways. The Soviets were turning their gaze on them after Germany was finished, and the Japanese are WAAAAAAY more scared of the Soviets than the US. Truman failed to understand the weapon he was using, and because of that, two hundred thousand people died. Sure, it may have saved American lives, and from a purely logical view, the decision made sense, but it still killed all those people.

My friends family was deeply affected by the bombings. I can tell you that it provides them no comfort that American *soldiers* were saved at the expense of Japanese *civilians*.

Remember this was WW2.
Okinawa had just been subdued I believe 12000 13000 American dead . Over 100000 Japanese civilians dead.
Japan was being carpet bombed everyday already. The fire bombing of Tokyo resulted in over a 100000 dead and 1/4 of the city incinerated.
There had been no indications that Japan was ready to surrender.
As far as Japanese not wanting to fight Russia’s because they were so feared. It’s true they were a threat but after the brutal islands campaigns with the US and the ongoing bombings over every major Japanese city I’m not sure they were more scared of the Russians or not.

It had been an absolutely brutal non stop no holes boarded war in the pacific. Both sides had fought brutal campaigns. They made the decision to do so after having just lived all that.

It’s easy to critique the decision 60 or 70 years later. But we dont have the experiences or perspective to say we would have done anything different.

 

[TCharley300]

My dad was in WW2. Although he didn't serve overseas, he did serve as a P47 and 51 mechanic in MS. and also as a clerk, because he knew how to type. There are a few similarities between the Japanese situation and the current Russian situation speaking on the military side.

Now IF and I say IF we are getting at least some truth about the mess over there, Russia could or might be low on manpower and also equipment. Japan will still able to make war equipment (I think) The real similarity is because of the people getting involved--meaning Russia would have to basically go street by street in a fight. That's just like Japan would have done if we had invaded. The decision was both a political and so called humanitarian decision, saving thousands of American lives. Personally, I wouldn't want to have been in "Truman's shoes at that decision time, but at that time I really don't think they realized what would happen, nor after Hiroshima did they really care.

That was then and this is now. Now, there are m,any more "toys" to drop, stronger toys to drop and a much lesser care of general humanity versus back then. This is why I keep saying it's a different war and really far more dangerous than before. Was it right back then to drop? Well, no, but I understand why it was done, so in that case, I have to say a reluctant yes, only because we had the toys, and no one else did. That's not the case now.

 

[Obreid]

The fire bombing of Tokyo consisted over over 300 B-29’s which dropped 1629 tones of napalm on Tokyo on March 9th 45.
For 4 1/2 months Japan did not budge on surrender with continued daily bombing of major Japanese cities. In august it was decided to use the new weapon. For 2 1/2 days Japan refused calls for surrender.