Was dropping the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the right thing to do?

There is that saying "It is better that thy soul be destroyed than bringeth down the destruction of the souls of many." That's when I thought about the U.S. dropping the Atomic bombs on Japan. We saved millions of lives on both sides. Japan promised us a fight to the last man, and don't mean just Japanese soldiers but also men, women and children to fight us to the last man had we invaded the mainland Japan. Dropping the A-bombs killed 100,000-200,000 while an invasion would be millions perhaps tens of millions of deaths. So is it better that 1 out of 100 die? To bring an end to WW2. War is Hell, war is ugly but that's what war is people die.

Plus Thou Shalt Not Kill means never killing an innocent person. The Imperial Japanese Empire was technically the Devil and you show no mercy to the Devil.

35 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago
    Favourite answer

    It's war. You hit the enemy with everything you've got. If the other guy invents a new weapon and blows your ash off, well, that's just too bad for you. PLUS the reasons you gave.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Necessary evil. Yes, they killed many thousands of people, but those two acts spooked the Japanese into surrendering, when they realised that the Allies has such a weapon which they couldn’t compete with. The war ended one week later. Had they not been dropped, the Allies would then have had to invade Japan (a populous and mountainous country, Taylor-made for guerilla warfare) and the war would have been prolonged many more years. The two bombs actually saved a lot more bloodshed. 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • hart
    Lv 6
    2 months ago

    force japan to accept a dictated constitution

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    It wasnt correct towards japanese but best for the future

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    I think so.  Invading various islands on the way to Japan showed that the Japanese were pretty much determined to fight to the last person.  It would have been a bloodbath.  Not that the bombs were 'nice' but if it saved American lives and the Japanese could see the writing on the wall, so be it.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • JuanB
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    No.  It was wrong.  

    Your ramblings on one side state you saved tens of millions then go on to say war is hell and people die.  So what is your thoughts?  Those 2 are complete opposite arguments and opposite beliefs. 

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Knowing what I know now, if I was Pres. Truman, I probably wouldn't have used the nukes.  But there are arguments on both sides.

    Arguments against:  The war was over and everyone knew it. Japan was already trying to arrange a cease-fire to negotiate a surrender.  We said we wanted 'unconditional' surrender, but we let them keep their emperor which was mostly what they wanted.  Hiroshima was not a 'military target', it was chosen because it was the largest city that hadn't already been bombed, so it would provide better opportunities to assess the damage the bomb did.  It did have some minor war production, but that was on the outskirts of the city, and the bomb was targeted at city hall, the center of POPULATION.  And a lot of historians suspect the purpose of the bomb was to warn the USSR not to come in and take Japan over, as the did in eastern Europe.

    Arguments for:  To be fair, Truman didn't know about the lingering danger of radioactive fallout that would kill people decades later and thousands of miles away.  We tested dozens of bombs right here at home!  He was told only that it was a big bomb that could destroy a whole city and that some people would die also from radiation.  If the war had gone on much longer, and people found Truman had a knockout weapon but didn't use it, he'd be blamed for every death.  Winning the war, as quickly as possible, in any way possible, was his top priority.

    We were told that an invasion of the home islands of Japan could cost 800,000 to 1,000,000 Allied lives. That was probably a lie.  By this point, Japan was mostly children, elderly, and women.  We were told Japanese housewives were trained to lash a kitchen knife to the end of a broomstick and go after US troops with that, that we'd have an insurgency that would be worse than the war.  But that isn't like Japanese people.  The fact is, we didn't have a single incident of insurgency!  We didn't make the mistake of simply disbanding the Japanese govt. and replacing it with a fake one of our own--as we did in Iraq.  We worked to make things better for the Japanese people. 

    • ...Show all comments
    • Fred
      Lv 5
      2 months agoReport

      ... and Japan already had Korean and Chinese coscripted labor in it's war factories on the main islands!

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    There are always options.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Yes, it saved millions of lives.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Go ask in History, as this has NOTHING to do with R&S.

    Japan's refusal to surrender before Aug 14, 1945 is 100% their responsibility.

    • nonpartisan
      Lv 6
      2 months agoReport

      Wake up, Einstein - this IS the History category.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.