ANSWERS: 18
  • I would not have used the A-bomb whether I knew or not.
  • I probably would have.
  • It's easy for us in 2007 to sit here and judge decisions made at a time of war in 1945, especially when we do not have the information before us that they did. The fact is, the Allies were fighting on two fronts. They also knew that Germany was close to developing its own nuclear bomb. Had they used it, it would have been used without second thought, and the survivors would have been under Nazi rule for the next so many years...if we know how bad the Holocaust was, think what it would have been if the Allies had lost WW2. With Germany so close to nuclear possibility, the obvious thing was to end one of the two fields of conflict quickly and decisively. Hard though it was, the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki achieved that. And, with the Pacific War over, it was then possible to take the troops from there and put them into Europe. Moreover, the threat of what happened to Japan was enough to scare the Nazis and dishearten them. The war was over in a few months. Had the bombs not been dropped, the war might have gone on much longer, with even more loss of life than there was OR it could have meant the use of an A-bomb by the Germans and/or the Japanese. It would have made Pearl Harbour look like a fight behind the shed. In war, there is sometimes no completely right decision. There is only the best decision of a lot of bad ones. I think that was what was done.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      Not to mention that fact that Operation Downfall (the invasion of the Japanese mainland) was expected to have 1million Allied casualties. Japanese casualties were expected to be as high as 10million.
  • If Truman had decided not to use the atom bomb, for all we know the USSR, Germany and Japan could have been fighing for the next 50 years. The use of the Atom Bomb was a NECESITY.
  • I would say a definite YES. If it was not used when it was (relatively) weak then it could have and probably would have been used during the cold war when the bombs were MUCH more powerful and numerous and could have wiped out both the US and the USSR.
  • Yes. It stopped the war.
  • Yes I would have. It did end the war with finality. I think it also had the added benefit of making everyone aware of the power of atomic weapons and scaring the crap out of them. Enough so that no one really wants to see them used again. I doubt we have seen the last use of nukes but there is a bit of fear of retaliation that might not be there if we weren't aware of exactly how much damage a nuke can do. Terrible weapons but seeing the destruction caused by those two small(by todays standards)bombs has been a bit of a deterrent to other countries who may have considered attacking us with nuclear weapons.
  • Repercussions. Since 1945 no nuke has been used in war. If the nukage of Japan had not happened, The Allies would have been forced to invade. High level Generals and Admirals made a preliminary, conservative Friendly Casualty Estimate which put US troop losses at over a million men, not to mention Japanese Losses. Repercussions? Like how the world would look today with that kind of ripple in History? And as a side note, even if the nuke wasn't used initially, there was about a fifty percent chance that the invasion would fail, and we'd nuke 'em anyway.
  • If I had know what it would have done then it would have been a very tough decision, but you're elected to do the best for your people and if it meant saving maybe a million of your young men and help reduce the devastation to your economy. Back then it was a decision that was weighted heavily in favour of using the bomb. There were also several factors in their usage. Since only two devices were ready, since "little boys" would take months to construct and several "fat man" casings had been manufactured that just required plutonium cores. This limited number meant you couldn't risk warning the Japanese you were going to use such a device incase they shot down the offending aircraft and you lost a device they could study. Also such a device would have staggered belief back then and they probably would have believed USA was clutching at straws with extravagant unbackable threats, worsening the war. The reason the second was used was to back the claim that the USA had a massive stockpile of these weapons (so could drop them like loose change) and was perfectly capable of carrying out it's threat to remove the ability for japanese to wage war. The lives that would be lost when estimated would be in excess of a million on both sides as the japanese just weren't surrendering and were causing horrific casualties on both sides on the few islands that had been invaded. The likelihood of a nuke being used was as stated above very high as they had no understanding of the fallout effects until after hiroshima and nagasaki were bombed and people died from radiation poisoning. This period of history was not far away from the "radiation quackery" period where radiation was considered good and you could buy a lump of uranium to put in your water before you drank it (not swallowing the lump so you could reuse it). There was only slight scientific hints at the turn of the century that infact the opposite was the case. Using the bombs ended the war though it did kill if top estimates are correct around half a million people in total in a four month period after their detonations. If the generals had known this at the time I imagine they would still have gone ahead as they are tasked with trying to minimise their own casualties and to win the war.
  • No, because it was illegal! The US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention and as such we are legally bound to recognize it as international law! The use of both nuclear devices traded civilian lives for military lives! Truman's decision to use them caused the death of hundreds of thousands of civilian women and children! The use of pyro bombs in civilian regions was also a clear violation of the GC! Any activities such as carpet bombing and indescriminate killing is illegal under the GC! Although it may expedite the war it is wrong to bring the attack to families and children! Anyone that wants to disagree with this idea has no moral compass left!
    • Hardcore Conservative
      Hiroshima & Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.
  • No, I would not. But then, I would not have dropped the bloody things at all, with or without the benefit of knowing the repurcussions. They were completely militarily unnecessary. The Japanese were defeated and looking to surrender. I would have given them the opportunity to do so. "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Eisenhower. - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63 http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
    • Hardcore Conservative
      The Prime Minister and Emperor of Japan ignored both the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. They had no intention of surrendering.
  • The point is Aoefreak, the Japanese "were not going to give up" as long as they felt the Emperor wished them to fight on.
  • YES without the nuclear weapon being invented and used we would not have nuclear power plants, kimo therapy, massive genetic knowledge, ect.
  • not only would i have made the decision, I would have made it much earlier than Truman did. it was a mistake to waist one of only 3 devices that we had the resources to build at the time in the middle of the desert where i now live (White Sands N.M.)
  • Yes. I personally would have chosen other targets (Tokyo), but it was the right decision. The Japanese had no intention of surrendering.
  • no, i hate bombs

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy