How did Truman justify the united states atomic bombing of japan?
Ending thw war sooner and saving tens of thousands of Allied and Japanese lives......
1 person found this useful
%REPLIES%. Answer . None whatsoever.\nMichael Montagne. Answer . The bombing of Japan with the atomic bomb served as a signal to the USSR that the US not only had the bomb, but that the US government was also crazy enough the use it. Simply having the bomb and ending the war - the Japanese h…ad been offering to surrender for months before the bombing -- would have left the possibility open that the US would not use the bomb, but just bluff with it.. (MORE)
This may just be opinion to many including my self, but the pros to dropping the atom bomb on Japan were these: 1. It ended the war since Germany had already surrendered. 2. It killed many Japanese people, innocent or other wise. I do realize as we look back now, this is wrong, but back in the 194…0's it looked at as though it was the right thing to do, and in a sense it was. I mean, hello, they did attack us at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941, and for what reason? Because they didn't want us to join the war. They thought by attacking us that it would hurt our pride and then we wouldn't want to fight, where in the end they made themselves loose because at that time, we weren't planning to join the war. I know it is not many reasons, but i hope you understand. this was a war that changed the course of the U.S.A, while you are in war what is the object? TO WIN! The goal of the atom bomb was to get the war over and guess what, it did. It is very easy for some to look back and harshly judge our actions in World War II. Is this fair? No. Many people today fail to give the spirit of the times proper respect. If you were not there, or if you have not fully investigated the whole situation, you cannot apply a truly fair and accurate judgment. This war had been going on for years. 400,000 Americans had already been killed in action. It had to end. The truth of the matter is this: the atomic attack on Japan saved lives - Allied and Japanese. The Japanese were not going to surrender. A war of attrition was their mindset. Their ports were blockaded. Nothing was being shipped in or out. They, essentially, were going to starve. The fire bombings of Japan throughout the summer of 1945 (which actually killed far, far more Japanese than the atomic attacks) did nothing to convince military leadership to surrender. Added to this fact is the gruesome reality of what an Allied mainland Japan invasion would mean. 1,000,000 Allied lives was projected. Whether you believe that figure or not, just watch "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" and imagine those invasion scenes playing out on the beaches and in the skies over Japan. The Japanese soldier was much different than the German - definitely the most tenacious the world has ever seen. They would have fought to the last man, woman or child in order to repel an invasion. The truth is, the atomic attack ended the war quickly, and saved more total lives in the end. It also prevented Soviet interference, since their non-aggression pact with Japan was to end in mid August 1945. A Soviet occupation of Japan would not have been in our best interest, folks. (MORE)
The U.S. Dropped the Atomic Bombs on Japan because our president beleived that it would save lives in the long run. (especially American lives) Also no one knew the after effects that the radiation would cause because it was never tested over a long period of time. The reason We dropped them where w…e did and not any where else is because Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sorry on spelling if i messed up) had a large enough population to impact the Japanese but also had major war industries. (MORE)
Answer . Yes. Remember that it was war. Japan had attacked U.S. interests in Pearl Harbor, had taken control of most of the pacific islands, ruthlessly attacked the people of China and had openly expressed their belief that because of our genetic "impurity", the people of the United States would …not be able to endure the kind of war that the United States would see from the Japanese military. Although Japan's attempts to attack the mainland USA were effectively defeated, Japanese leaders did succeed in one incident of killing U.S. children by putting bombs on small weather baloons. After the U.S. and our allies had defeated Japanese troops on all of the other Pacific Islands, the Japanese imperial leadership insisted on maintaining complete control over the government. The USA and our allies decided that the only way to avoid such further umprovoked attacks was to force Japan into surrender. Japan had prepared every citizen to fight back an invasion of Japan using conventional forces. Bombing was the only way to stop the agression of Japanese leaders. Japanese nobility felt that they were divinly appointed to the position and that their God would not only help them in their endeavor but that it was their responsibility to take over all of the Pacific Islands. (MORE)
Were the Atomic Bombings Justifiable? \n. \nHere are summaries of opinions from FAQ Farmers on the moral or immoral nature of the decision to bomb Japan with nuclear weapons.\n. \n Fewer Americans died \n. \n . The war in the Pacific had been raging for almost four years. The two battles immed…iately preceeding the bomb decision were Iwo Jima and Okinawa, two battles where the Japanese fought to the death and the cost in American casualties was horrific. It was predicted that the invasion of the Japanese mainland at the Island of Kyushu -- scheduled for November of 1945 -- would be even worse. The entire Japanese military and civilian population would fight to the death. American casualties -- just for that initial invasion to get a foothold on the island of Japan would have taken up to an estimated two months and would have resulted in up to 75,000 to 100,000 casualties -- up to 20,000 dead! And that was just the beginning. Once the island of Kyushu was captured by U.S. troops, the remainder of Japan would follow. You can just imagine the cost in injuries and lives this would take.\n . \n . Estimated US casualties for Operation OLYMPIC & CORONET were 250,000 along with 1,000,000 Japanese civilian casualties. In the parlance of the young, "this is a no-brainer." \n . \n . It is not beyond the possibility that a million or more Americans could have been killed had we landed. The Japanese had correctly guessed where we intended to land, and were ready and waiting for us. The casualties would have been high. One American tanker walked around the area he was to have assaulted had we landed. According to him most of the "roads" marked on his map were not roads, but simply foot paths. He felt that tanks would have played a very small part in the fighting. It would have been more fighting against caves, and suicide attacks.\n . \n . The bomb was dropped with a desire to SAVE LIVES. It is a matter of math. How many Americans lost their lives fighting how many Japanese at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa. The mathematical formula showed the closer we got to Japan the more we lost. Next, one must calculate how many Japanese military people were still in Japan. Add to that figure the fact that women were being trained to fight. Before you say the women would not fight please remember that many women on Okinawa committed suicide fearing all the stories they were told about what the Americans would do to them if they surrendered.\n . \n . Perhaps your grandfathers were among the 18-26 year old American GI's who had managed to survive the war in Europe. If so, on August 6, 1945, they were with approximately a million other boys on the way to the Pacific. At least 50-80% of them were expected to die in the invasion of the Japanese home islands. Since most of these young men were not yet married, your grandfathers had not yet married your grandmothers, so if they did not come back, then your parents would never be born and therefore you would not be here to second-guess historical decisions.\n . \n . People can argue all they want about what the true U.S. government estimates of U.S. casualties in an invasion of Japan were. Doesn't matter. I can guarantee you that 99.9% of the soldiers, sailors and airmen involved in the actual combat, or training for the upcoming invasion were convinced that the invasion of Japan would be a bloodbath. I have never heard or read of any American military person who was involved in the late stages of fighting in the war with Japan who was not glad that the atomic bombs were dropped to end the war.\n . \n. \n. \n Japanese civilians died \n. \n . Yes, war is war, and death in war is redundant, you must realize, that death in war is only legal if it is military death and not civilian death, unless the civilians pick up arms and fight back (then in that case they would be considered combatants).\n . \n . To say that the U.S. was justified in dropping the bombs, one would have to believe the maxim "the end justifies the means."\n . \n . Bombs in general should seldom be used especially those of this magnitude.\n . \n. \n. \n Fewer Japanese civilians died \n. \n . The largest number of people killed in a single B-29 raid was not at Hiroshima, but at Tokyo, with conventional firebombs. Some 80,000-100,00 people killed. The problem was that even with the savage firebombing, the pathetic idiot military elite that was in charge of Japan DIDN'T CARE! They didn't care how much suffering their people had to endure. Surrender was NOT going to happen! Real men, real samurai NEVER SURRENDER! The voices of reason calling for surrender, for beginning negotiations with America were shouted down. Thus, more than anything else, the atomic bomb gave Emperor Hirohito the "face-saving" boost that he needed to tell these idiots that the time had come for Japan to surrender. It was one thing to surrender in the face of battle against an enemy with conventional bombs and weapons. It was another thing to face the seemingly supernatural force of atomic weapons. No matter that the atomic bombs actually killed fewer Japanese per city and were thus LESS EFFECTIVE than conventional firebombs. No, atomic weapons were a supernatural force that the Americans now controlled and so this was a good reason to stop fighting finally.\n . \n . When you compare with simple math, the dropping of the bombs took less lives than if we had tried to invade Japan. That's true for Japanese lives as well as American lives. Japanese lives were saved as a direct result of those bombs.\n . \n . The Japanese casualties (not including mass suicides as seen on Okinawa) were expected to be 5 to 10 times that of the Allies in an invasion. As many as 20 million Japanese men, women and children might have died in a bloody invasion. Saving lives in a worthy goal. Sadly some had to die that others might live.\n . \n . While the atomic bombs, just as ANY bombs, were an unpleasant way to die, in the long run it saved lives and brought WW 2 to an end. Six long and costly years of world-wide death and destruction came to an end, thanks to the courageous decision made by President Truman.\n . \n . How many Japanese would have died as we invaded the islands of Japan? Every city could have been leveled, every rice paddy, all utilities, sewers, etc. What bullets and bombs didn't kill the diseases that followed would finish. Certainly that figure would have exceeded those that died BY FAR all those that died from the two bombs dropped.\n . \n . After having fought through Iwo Jima, Saipan, Guam, and Okinawa, there was no doubt that the Japanese people and their leaders would fight until the last man, woman, and child. If the Emperor had not instructed his subjects to stop fighting after Nagasaki they were prepared to resist tanks and artillery with sticks and stones until the last man, woman, and child perished. \n . \n . An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been a blood-bath for both sides. One could ask if cutting off the arm of a man is just. If that arm has gangrene and will kill the man slowly if not amputated, then it is indeed just. It does not matter that the arm is "innocent."\n . \n. \n. \n Radiation is more horrible than conventional bombs \n. \n . The radiation released from the bombs is still causing problems in Japan today. Many people died because of exposure to radiation. I understand that the people back then did not know the effects of an atomic explosion, they just thought that they were super bombs. And I also acknowledge the fact that invading Japan itself will cause high casualties on both sides. But, civilians are not suppose to protect the soldiers with their lives, it is the other way around! In a war, the deaths of 1 million soldiers are better than the death of 1 civilian, because civilians are innocent and soldiers are not. Surrendered soldiers are also innocent. I know that many soldiers were conscripted and do not want to fight, well too bad, blame the war.\n . \n . The atomic bomb leaves behind radiation. And not just where the bomb exploded, the wind carried the particles around. The radiation is what makes the bomb so controversial. Yes, the US achieved its goals, but, after the bombings and up to 4 months afterwards, tens of thousands of people died of illness directly related to radiation poisoning. Is this justifiable by saying that more people would have died if the US invaded Japan? Maybe it is, I'm not saying it isnt, but the thing is, even if more people died, dying of radiation sickness or watching as the skin melt off of you is much worse than being shot to death, or dying while fighting to protect the land you love.\n . \n . Can you really compare any type of bombing to atomic bombing which does have the factor of radiation poisioning which lead to cancers such as Leukemia. Does anybody deserve this destroyer of lives to be dropped on them? Several women had the intricate designs from their Kimonos burned into their flesh!\n . \n. \n. \n The US wanted to kill as many civilians as possible \n. \n . The bombs were nothing more than senseless civilian casualties in an already bloody war.\n . \n . Supposedly the U.S. used the bomb on a military target. The reality is that Hiroshima was chosen not because there was a weapons plant nearby, but because it was a highly populated urbanized city. The site was chosen to showcase the full destructive power that the U.S. had available.\n . \n. \n Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets \n. \n . One may think that the US chose to bomb the most populated areas only to kill many innocent civilians, but this is ridiculous to anyone who has studied history. The two cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were industrialized and military ports.\n . \n. \n All nations in WWII killed civilians \n. \n . Like it or not there was little distinction between civilians and soldiers in WWII owing to the industrial nature of the war. The military could not operate without a functioning civilian economic base. All the major players targeted industry, communication and transportation of their opponents. This is in addition to directly attacking civilians in the hope of fostering terror. Of all the nations the U.S. had the luck of geography that Germany and Japan really could not hit the mainland US. They tried.\n . \n . This was World War II. Bombs were dropped. People died. It happened in most participant nations and most of them dropped bombs of their own. If they didn't, it was only because they didn't have any to drop. I cannot for the life of me understand what difference it makes what type of bomb was dropped by whom.\n . \n. \n Japan wanted to bomb the US \n. \n . The Japanese had a secret atomic bomb project. Is there any doubt they would have use it if they had succeeded in perfecting the bomb?\n . \n. \n The Japanese were not innocent \n. \n . Just four years earlier the Japanese invaded us at Pearl Harbor without warning, bringing the US into World War II. We at least gave Japan a warning and they still wouldn't surrender. It had to be done.\n . \n . Read "Rape of Nanking", a book about Japanese atrocities in China during WWII. Talk to some of the older people of China, Korea, Singapore, etc. who experienced WWII at the hands of the Japanese military. I would challenge you to find a single Asian person of that generation with personal experience of the Japanese invasions of their country who is not PROFOUNDLY GLAD that Japan got atomic bombed. My personal references in this case are my own parents and my two in-laws. Uniformly, their response to this would be: "Yes! Japan deserved getting atomic bombed!" To this day, the people of Asia have still not forgotten or forgiven Japan for its many atrocities of WWII and earlier.\n . \n . The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan has allowed the Japanese to maintain this myth that THEY were just as much victims of WWII as all the people of Asia and the Allied soldiers who died at their hands. Has anybody ever wondered why Germany does not have similar fantasies of victimhood? We have the Holocaust to "thank" for this. The death camps in Germany were kept as monuments to Nazi atrocities and the Nuremberg trials exposed the war criminals. Only the most egregious Japanese war criminals were put on trial.\n . \n. \n The bombings had nothing to do with Japan, it was about the Cold War \n. \n . The real reason America used these weapons was to show Russia that the US possessed them. \n . \n. \n There would have been a Soviet occupation \n. \n . The invasion was set for November 1, 1945. By that time, the USSR would have fought long enough to have a say in the partition of the Japanese island group and perhaps even Tokyo itself. The impact of Soviet occupation upon Japan and the part it could have played in Korea and the Cold War cannot be calculated. \n . \n. \n All war is unjust \n. \n . I'm not sure anyone person is capable of answering this question. If you ask a Japanese or German who lost family members during the bombing of Hiroshima or firebombing of Dresden, you might get a different answer. Then ask a London resident during the bombing and rocket attacks of WW2 and see what he or she says.\n . \n . Was dropped the atomic bombs a nice, humane thing to do? No, it has been a long time if ever that warfare has been a noble art. Did it save lives in the long run? Yes.\n . \n . It is very hard to walk in the shoes of the people who made the decisions in 1945 especially when some of the greatest "concerns" people have today are what Paris Hilton is wearing or who just got booted off of Survivor.\n . \n . I believe the notions of Just and Unjust are incompatible with war. Moral standards are created to facilitate civilian societies. Any attempt at reasoning within the same conceptual framework during a war collapses immediately. Formally, the USA had a right to drop the bomb, by international law of the time. Her territories had been violated and there was a state of war. The USA committed no crime of any national or international kind when dropping the A bombs. In fact, the USA was not even subject to international conventions in her relation to Japan, as Japan had not signed any. Even if the USA had been subject to Geneva and Hague in her relation with Japan, as she unilaterally declared herself to feel, the only applicable rule would have been proportionality.\n . \n . In war, the objective is to defeat your enemy and keep your own men alive. The point of war is to win, not to make friends. I'm sorry if you see this as a cold response, but when it comes to war, the moral thoughts that govern society are not the same morals that govern the military. \n . \n. \n Japan was already losing \n. \n . Japan was losing in 1945. It was only a matter of time before Japan lost the war.\n . \n. \n The bombings ended the war \n. \n . Japan was not about to fold. The military attempts to prevent the emperor from capitulating are an indication of this.\n . \n . As is not always realized, the U.S. asked Japan to surrender before the dropping of the first bomb, and yet we got no response after the first bomb, thus as a result, we dropped our last atomic bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in Japan's full surrender.\n . \n . Justification is so often seen by various sides of the argument from their own perspective. What seems just to one side is dismissed by another. Truman's decision to drop the bombs was undoubtedly right. Even after the second bomb was detonated, the Japanese still did not surrender for another week! The US kept up round the clock bombing by B-29s until the moment of surrender.\n . \n . Even after Hirohito made the tape of his speech of surrender, to be broadcast the following day, a group of diehard military officers attempted a coup and tried to snatch the tape. General Mori of the Imperial Guards was murdered in the coup (he refused to divulge the location of the tape), the plotters were unable to find the tape, and the coup failed. Japan was in the grip of fanatics. . Answer . The United States in the latter days of WW2 was faced with a terrible dilemma. The Japanese are a proud, courageous and determined people. Japanese men, women and children were willing to die for the emperor. The invasion of Japan was necessary to end the war, because the Japanese would "lose face" if they considered surrender. In August of 1944 the war in Europe was over and the face off between the United States and Japan had finally arrived. The United States had to choose between sending hundreds of thousands of US soldiers, many freshly off the battlefields of Europe, to invade Japan killing and being killed by the hundreds of thousands, or dropping a newly developed weapon called the atomic bomb on two cities in Japan which would result in tens of thousands of civilian lives with little cost to US servicemen. The only hope of ending the war quickly and honorably was to drop the bombs. Calls for surrender were ignored and repugnent to the Japanese hierarchy; Okinawa and Iwo Jima had shown clearly what an invasion of Japan would be like. The decision was made, the bombs were dropped, the war was ended and both military and civilian lives were saved by both countries.. Answer . \n!03,000 people died at the time and a further 1000 over the next 30 years, although many are living (and dying) with the effects.. (MORE)
Answer . The only bad thing about the bomb was the loss of life in Japan. Politically and for the good of the entire world, it was a good thing because it saved more lives overall.
Answer . There were members of the scientific, political and military communities that strongly opposed the use of the atomic for varied reasons. President Truman over ruled their objections.
The Japanese were very reluctant to surrender. A single previousbombing using conventional bombs had killed about half what theatomic bomb had approximately, yet that had not deterred Japan inthe slightest. Of the few options presented, the atomic bombactually resulted in minimal deaths, and a quick… and clear messageto the Japanese of the power that the US held. (MORE)
While no act of war is necessary, it could be argued that dropping the bomb did end the war immediately; otherwise it could have been some time before an end was reached and more lives may have been lost.
Harry Truman thought that by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, hewould save American lives and end World War II faster. He alsowanted to collapse Japan's means to make war again. He believedthat the loss of a few hundred thousand citizens and the completeobliteration of the enemy country's morale …was a far better optionthan the loss of a few million people from both sides combined anda huge consumption of resources in the midst of a protractedinvasion. Also, it was used to intimidate Soviet Russia since theend of the war was nearing and tension was starting to accumulate. Towards the end of WWII, Japan began to fight what they knew was alosing war in the Pacific. But since the Japanese lived by a mottoin which they would die before they were captured by an American,every last battle would be fought until there were no survivors.Seeing this as a useless waste of lives on both the American andJapanese side, Truman made a hard decision and decided to drop theFat Man and Little Boy on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His reasoning wasthat if he took many lives at once, Hirohito would finally see thatan end was needed to the senseless killing. Thus, on August 6 and 9of 1945, the bombs were dropped. Civilian casualties were huge;however, as Truman had predicted, Hirohito ended Japan'sinvolvement in the war afterwords, making it so that no moreAmerican lives had to be spent. He had already moved toward demanding Japan's unconditionalsurrender; how best to force that surrender was left to be decided.If the war dragged on, there would many more military and civiliancasualties. If the Soviet Union perceived a weakness by the US, itwould be emboldened in its postwar stance in Eastern Europe. Otherdemocracies would be affected by the policies of the US regardingmilitary actions. Truman chose to act, and nuclear bombs were soonseen as too fearsome a weapon to use in "ordinary" wars. As itturned out, the use of nuclear weapons likely influenced theEmperor of Japan to order the war's end. His concern for his peopleeventually outweighed the loss of national prestige. President Truman had two choices: 1) He could drop the bomb and endthe war quickly or 2) He could send waves of infantry towardsJapan. If he decided to send in infantry to attack Japan, manysoldiers would have died for he knew Japan would not give up soeasily. He knew the Japanese would fight to the death. Also, hepartially wanted to follow through with President Roosevelt'spromise after the attack on Pearl Harbor that America would getnothing more than absolute victory. So to save lives and follow apromise, he dropped the bombs. President Harry S. Truman, speech (6th August, 1945) The harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The forcefrom which the sun draws its power has been used against those whobrought war to the Far East. We have spent $2,000,000,000 (about$500,000,000) on the greatest gamble in history, and we havewon. With this bomb we have now added a new and revolutionaryincrease in destruction to supplement the growing power of ourarmed forces. In their present form these bombs are now inproduction and even more powerful forms are in development. Before 1939 it was the accepted belief of scientists that it wastheoretically possible to release atomic energy, but none knew anypractical method of doing it. By 1942 however, we knew the Germanswere working feverishly to find a way to add atomic energy to otherengines of war with which they hoped to enslave the world, but theyfailed. We may be grateful to Providence that the Germans got VI'sand V2's and in limited quantities, and even more grateful thatthey did not get the atomic bomb at all. The battle of the laboratories held fateful risksfor us as well as the battles of the air, land and sea and we havenow won the battle of the laboratories as we have won otherbattles. Before Pearl Harbour, scientific knowledge useful in warwas pooled between the United States and Britain and manypriceless.helps to our victories have come from the arrangement.Under that general policy, research on the atomic bomb was begun.With American and British scientists working together, we enteredthe race of discovery against the Germans. We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completelyevery productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in anycity. We shall destroy their docks, their factories and theircommunications. Let there be no mistake, we shall completelydestroy Japan's power to make war. It was in spare the Japanese people from utter destruction thatthe ultimatum of July 26 was issued from Potsdam. Their leaderspromptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept ourterms they may expect a rain of run from the air the like of whichhas never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack willfollow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they havenot yet seen and with a fighting skill of which they have alreadybecome well aware. Although workers at the sites have been making thematerials to be used in producing the greatest destructive force inhistory, they have not themselves been in danger beyond that ofmany other occupations for the utmost care has been take for theirsafety. The fact that we can release atomic energy ushers in a newera on man's understanding of nature's forces. I shall recommendthe Congress of the United States to consider promptlyestablishment of an appropriate Commission to control theproduction and use of atomic power within the United States. Ishall give further consideration and make a further recommendationto Congress as to how atomic power can become a powerful andforceful influence towards the maintenance of world peace. At the end of World War II, few questioned Truman's decision todrop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americansaccepted the obvious reasoning: the atomic bombings brought the warto a more timely end. They did not have a problem with over onehundred thousand of the enemy being killed. After all, the Japaneseattacked America, and not the other way around. In later years,however, many have begun to question the conventional wisdom of"Truman was saving lives," putting forth theories of their own.However, when one examines the issue with great attention to theresults of the atomic bombings and compares these results withpossible alternatives to using said bombs, the line between truthand fiction begins to clear. Truman's decision to use the atomicbomb on Japan was for the purpose of saving lives and ending thewar quickly in order to prevent a disastrous land invasion. The people who are now questioning Truman's motives are often knownas Revisionists, because they attempt to revise common perceptionsof history, proposing alternate theories and motives. As early as1946 they begin to postulate new ideas, but their words only beganto receive credence in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Revisionistscontend that Truman either had ulterior motives in the dropping ofthe atomic bombs or that he used these bombs on Japan for anentirely different reason, one that had nothing to do with savinglives. Most people who were alive at the time of the Hiroshima andNagasaki bombings, especially veterans, subscribe to the"traditional" belief that Truman decided to drop the atomic bombson Japan for solely military reasons. A timely end to the war wouldmean that no land invasion of Japan is necessary. Such an invasionwould have been extraordinarily costly in terms of not onlyAmerican lives, but also in terms of Japanese dead. Ending the warquickly would return soldiers to their homes and allow Americans tobegin a life of normality again. The Revisionists, however, believe that Truman had either partiallyor entirely different reasons for bombing Japan. They believe thatthe destruction of two Japanese cities would accomplish severalthings. Most obviously, it would punish the Japanese for thebombing of Pearl Harbor and the atrocious treatment of Americanprisoners of war. Also, an atomic bombing of Japan is also the onlything that would justify the expense of the Manhattan Project. Ifthis expense was not justified, Truman would have faced aCongressional inquiry into the misappropriation of $2 billion. Notonly did he want to avoid Congressional hearings, but he alsowanted another term of office. His chances of reelection would havebeen nil if it were learned by the general public that he wastedmoney and American lives by shelving a weapon that could have endedthe war more quickly. The final Revisionist claim is that Trumanwanted to give the U.S. and edge in the coming Cold War by showingthat he was not afraid to use these weapons of mass destruction.They also say that Truman should have chosen one of the severalavailable ways to compel a Japanese surrender without an atomicbombing of two cities. The most obvious alternative is an Americaninvasion of Japan. Olympic was the code-name given to the plannedAmerican invasion of Kyushu, one of the four Japanese home islands,if an atomic bomb were not available by late October. Two separateestimates exist to rate the number of American casualties thatwould result from such an invasion. A joint war plans committeecomprised of the army and navy came to the conclusion that 46,000Americans would die in an invasion of Kyushu and later Honshu. Thenumber of American wounded averaged three to one during the lateryears of the war, so according to this estimate, 175,000 Americancasualties were not out of the question. However, these figureswere based on such tentative intelligence that George Marshall, thearmy's chief of staff, bluntly rejected them. A second estimate proposed by Admiral Leahy was much higher. Theinvasion of Iwo Jima caused 6,200 American deaths, and the U. S.outnumbered the Japanese by four to one. Okinawa cost 13,000 U. S.servicemen, and they outnumbered the Japanese by two and one-halfto one. These 13,000 men made up more than 35% of the U. S. landingforce. Consequently, Admiral Leahy came to the conclusion that itwas absurd to think that any less than 35% of the American forcethat invaded Japan would be killed. Based on the estimate of560,000 Japanese soldiers on Kyushu as of early August, Leahypredicted that at very minimum over 250,000 American soldiers wouldlie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands. It was later found that the troop strength on Kyushu was greatlyunder-estimated, and that by August 6 the Japanese had over 900,000men stationed on Kyushu, nearly twice as many as thought. Leahy'sestimates that the Americans would have a preponderance, when infact the 767,000 American soldiers who would comprise the landingforce were already greatly outnumbered three months beforeOperation Olympic was actually to begin. By November, Japanesetroop strength could easily double or triple, making between500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths conceivable. These numbers do not even begin to account for the Japanese dead.In Okinawa, twice as many Japanese were killed as Americans. It istherefore plausible that between 100,000 (according to the earliestestimate) and two million soldiers would die in an invasion. Thisnumber does not include Japanese civilians dead, which couldconceivably have been even higher than the number of dead soldiers. Also, if Truman had not used the atomic bomb then congress wouldhave raked him over the coals after the war for having wasted the$2,000,000,000 expenditure developing them by not using them toshorten the war! He might even have been impeached! Another very possible reason was that Truman wanted to avoid havingto us the chemical weapons that had been stockpiled on thedeparture islands for use in the invasion of Japan. The effects ofthese chemical weapons are as horrifying as the effects of thebombs that were used, but could not be limited to their targets.Thus there would have been far more collateral damage if he hadused the chemical weapons instead of or in addition to the nuclearweapons. He wanted to quickly end the war in the Pacific without invadingJapan. It was concluded by military leaders that a second atomic bombingthree days after the first would so terrify and disorient theJapanese leadership they would surrender. A secondary reason wasthe physicists who created the bombs wanted to determine whichstyle of bomb would be the most effective -- the plutonium oruranium based weapon. The only actual decision on the use of atomic bombs made byTruman was to stop using them after the first two unless hepersonally authorized more later. Had he not done this, there wasanother one ready that Los Alamos had already shipped and couldhave been dropped sometime around August 25. The reactors atHanford could produce enough Plutonium for three bombs every month,and by switching to a composite Plutonium/Uranium core beginning inNovember seven bombs could be made every month (these plans werealready in place by June). Even if we hadn't of dropped the atomic bomb, Hiroshima andNagasaki would still have been targets for attack. This is becauseHiroshima was a large industrial city that contained the 2ndJapanese Army Headquarters, which was in charge of all the defensesystems in Southern Japan; Hiroshima also had communication centersfor armies, storage points, and troop assemblies. Small industrialplants were also in the outskirts of the city. As for Nagasaki, itwas the largest fully operational sea port in Southern Japan, whichproduced ships, equipment, and relief supplies. He stated that he needed to end the war and collapse Japan's means to make war never again. (MORE)
Did the united state officials know about the health affects of atomic bombs before you bombed japan?
yes, they had been informed that the bomb would produce "radium like" materials and the health effects of radium were well known.
That depends on who you ask. If you ask a Marine or soldier in the Pacific in 1945, they would probably agree that it was justified. The casualty projections for the invasion were running at an expected 2,000.000 killed and wounded.. Don't forget most Americans also blamed Japan for getting the US …into the war by attacking Pearl Harbor.. The Japanese obviously didn't feel that the unleashing of the bomb on civilians was justified. (MORE)
Yes. However, by 1944, they did not have any bases close enough to attack. During the war, Japan experimented with balloons that would float a bomb to the US western coast and release. One person was actually killed in a remote area from one of these balloon bombs.
ID1205554227 said: i think it was justified to lunch not one but to boms on japan to stop the war. i do wish there was a nother solution insted of the bom but sence there wasnt i do think the united states made the right choice. ^Maybe you should learn how to write properly before giving advic…e on dropping nukes. Or atleast learn how to click the "Spell check" button. . 23 atomic bombs were being prepared in 1945 to drop on Japan, not just 2. The other solution was available , landing and invasion. But this would have taken at least another year, over a million US troops lives and many million Japanese lives. The atomic bombs saved well over an order of magnitude more lives than they cost. (MORE)
Most of the arguments were of the civilian deaths and the sickness those bombs brought.
This is a question which will never be answered; but will always be asked.. Some historians say "yes". It saved lives from a possible invasion of Japan.. Some historians say "no". It was inhumane; and lives could have been saved by other means, and "who's to say...how many lives would've been save…d during an invasion of Japan..." (MORE)
Harry Truman's justification was that he did it to save the lives of our American soldiers and to end the War between us and the Japanese. He decided to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima so that the Japanese would give up. He bombed two giant cities with people who had nothing to do with the war and who w…ere just trying to live instead of hitting the Japanese hard where it hurts, their military. The atomic bomb killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese people instead of attacking their military with people who were ready to die. Japanese attacked our military not our cities with millions of innocent people. Harry Truman had no justification for that. (MORE)
congress declared war on japan then japans allies (Germany and Italy) declared war on the united states
it was justified because it ended the war sooner and fewer American lives were lost. Also, Japanese lives were lost but way less than a planned invasion of japan.!
Definitely. Japan's cabinet was split even after the bombing of Hiroshima, so the second bomb was needed to end the war. In the past few years, there's been some historical revisionism that purports that Japan was "ready to surrender anyway." None of the Japanese leadership in post-war interviews ha…d that attitude. At least two cabinet members were on record as thinking they could take an additional twenty MILLION deaths before they needed to consider surrender, and their actions in the battles in the preceding months show they meant it. Note that there was only one more bomb in theater, and only three more in the entire arsenal. Had Hirohito known that, he might yet have held out. It wasn't, after all, the destruction of those bombs that made the difference (other bombing raids were accomplishing the same level of destruction) but the threat of more that impressed some of the Japanese Emperor and General Staff. (MORE)
Probably for the same reasons D-day in Europe wasn't justified... innocent people died. If you insist on armchair quarterbacking every military decision without all the facts the decision makers of the time had and with facts that have come out since that time that could not have been known by an…yone at the time, you will quickly find every action made in every war ever fought to be both not justified and completely immoral. In the context of the time and given the facts the decisions were based on, both atomic bombings were fully justified and moral actions, as would have been any that followed had Japan not surrendered. You probably are not aware that the US had already committed 100% to attack Japan with chemical weapons during the invasion in late 1945, if similar resistance was encountered as was seen on the last few islands. Such an attack violated the Geneva Convention and could be declared a war crime. Truman was fully aware that usage of chemical weapons on Japan was planned and could easily have viewed usage of the atomic bomb as the lesser of two evils, especially if its use avoided need for the chemical weapons (which in fact it did). But this fact has been classified Top Secret since the decision was made and was only declassified a few years ago. (MORE)
In the Battle of Okinawa, the Japanese solders fought and died for a hopeless cause until they completely ran out of ammunition. Harry Truman realized the Japanese would not surrender as long as they had one bullet. He decided a lot fewer lives would be lost, both American and Japanese, with the ato…m bomb than with an invasion of Japan. (MORE)
President Harry Truman had many alternatives at his disposal for ending the war: invade the Japanese mainland, hold a demonstration of the destructive power of the atomic bomb for Japanese dignitaries, drop an atomic bomb on selected industrial Japanese cities, bomb and blockade the islands, wait fo…r Soviet entry into the war on August 15, or mediate a compromised peace. At the end of World War II, few questioned Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americans accepted the obvious reasoning: the atomic bombings brought the war to a more timely end. They did not have a problem with over one hundred thousand of the enemy being killed. After all, the Japanese attacked America, and not the other way around. In later years, however, many have begun to question the conventional wisdom of "Truman was saving lives," putting forth theories of their own. However, when one examines the issue with great attention to the results of the atomic bombings and compares these results with possible alternatives to using said bombs, the line between truth and fiction begins to clear. Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan was for the purpose of saving lives and ending the war quickly in order to prevent a disastrous land invasion. (MORE)
The US and Japan were at war, and Japan had refused to surrender. If the US invaded Japan, it was estimated that more than 1 million US service members would be killed, and several million Japanese would die. Japan was advised that the US had a new weapon, but would not surrender. After being bombed… twice, they surrendered. (MORE)
i don't think it was because even though it had saved many people lives but it also had killed many civilians of japan who had nothing to do with it...
No true justification in the war with Japan; the bomb was dropped as a warning or threat to Soviet Union. Also this bomb was an experience of US army.
If Hirohito had decided that regardless of what happened, the Japanese would never surrender, it could have been decades before we brought Japan to heel, and the country would have been destroyed. The Japanese people were unimpressed by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: more had died in… the firebombings of Tokyo, and neither events made the Japanese people lose heart. Hirohito, however, saw that, yes, Japan could keep fighting to the end, but his country would face utter destruction. We hoped that the prospect of unending destruction from the sky (we were bluffing, we only had 2 bombs and we used them both) would cause those in power to surrender. Luckily, we were right. Hindsight is 20/20, and anyone who says we should not have used the a bomb is not aware of all the issues, but at the time it could easily have made little difference. (MORE)
There were no more atomic bombs to drop. Further, the Japanese government had already sued for peace.
President Truman stated that he needed to end the war and to collapse Japan's means to make war ever again.
Not letting the soldier and sailor go in Japans mainland since it would be more war casualties for the US than the one they had already.
Firebombings All Across Japan: 1942-1945, with major cities including Tokyo-Yokohama, Osaka, Kobe, and Nagoya among many other smaller ones. Atomic Bombings Hiroshima, Japan: August 6, 1945 Nagasaki, Japan: August 9, 1945
President Truman stated that he wanted to end the war and collapse Japan's means to make war.
President Truman stated that he wanted to end the war and to collapse Japan's means to make war again.
At the time, no one questioned it. Hundreds of cities had been bombed to ruins during the preceding six years, and millions of civilians killed in the process. The atomic missions did end the war, and all the Allies were exceedingly glad of it - except perhaps the Russians, who only got into the war… against Japan for the last week, and would have liked more time to gobble up more Japanese territory. Even the Japanese were not too upset over it, since they had a more pressing thing to worry about, which was just having lost the war of aggression they had started. The Japanese were more worried about getting to keep their Emperor, whom they believed was a living god. Anyone in an American uniform at the time thought the bombs were just absolutely beautiful, because now they would not have to die invading Japan, and they could go home. The bombs actually saved many more lives than they snuffed out. There was detailed planning underway for the first two of a planned four invasion landings of the Japanese Home Islands. Estimates were that in the first of these alone, there would be one million American casualties. And it was assumed that ALL the Japanese would have to be killed. Certainly all the military men, and probably the civilians too. The Japanese were drilling women with bamboo spears and planned to send them out to try to stab Americans when the landings came. The US had just finished the capturing of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and as in every earlier battle of the Pacific, the Japanese had fought to the last man, long, long after it was hopeless. It was expected they would be even more fanatical in their own Home Islands. In deciding on using the bombs Truman had to consider that if he did not use them, when it became known that the US had invested over one billion 1940 dollars (probably equal to 100 billion today) in a weapon that could have immediately ended the war, but instead Truman had decided NOT to use it and had sent millions of Americans to die or be permanently crippled and maimed capturing Japan, that the people of the US would demand his head on a platter. (MORE)
Your question asks for an opinion. In my opinion, yes, Truman was right. The Japanese civilian government was being controlled by the Japanese military, who was prepared to continue to fight (including one plan to bomb San Diego with bilogical weapons. Japan had refused demands to surrender, which w…ould have meant an invasion of Japan by conventional forces- which has been estimated to have cost over a million lives. Japan was at war with the US- a war they started- and refused to surrender. I agree. Einstein's letter to Roosevelt was highly influential in his decision to move forward with the project in the first place & Japan was working on the bomb. It only speeded up the end of the war not necessarily caused more damage than conventional weapons since 1 bomb was pretty much the equivalent of a weeks worth of bombing runs. It was also responsibly done which is why they were detonated above ground. (MORE)
The Japanise also wanted power over the Earth, so to shut them up, the Americans dropped an atom bomb over Hiroshima.
Justified or not, Truman stated that he needed to end the war and collapse Japan's means to make war never again.
So they would surrender, but they had already surrendered. My grandad told me they just wanted to test it. He should know he captured the last high ranked solider in the japs army. When I say captured he fell on to his own sword instead of being captured
To force the Japanese Government to surrender unconditionally saving thousands of American servicemen's lives, and possibly as many as a million Japanese lives - most of them women, children and old men - who would have died if the Allies had been forced to invade Japan.
World war 2 have caused the most death toll of all of the wars and Truman stated that this weapon could end the war sooner with less dead service members.
That is a question of opinion. And my opinion is yes as I truly believe it saved around a million lives.
President Truman stated that he needed to end the war and to collapse Japan's means to make war ever again.
The justification for using the atomic bomb was that it ended the war , or at least ended it sooner and thereby saved countless American-and Japanese-lives .
since the Japanese Army was actually doing Kamikaza, which means japanese sucide bomb attacks, on the United States Navy. Truman had no other choice to to use the Atomic Bomb on Japan since they refuse to surrender regardless of how Truman explained to them how deadly the bomb is.
The US started building the atomic bomb because it came to their attention that the Nazi scientists in Germany were already working on it. By the start of 1945, the US did not have a ready atomic bomb. Neither did Germany, although they were much closer to it than the US. Once the Allies began their… invasion of Germany, the American and Soviet military hunted down the scientists of the Nazi atomic programme. The US was more successful than the USSR in this (of course, the USSR did not actually have an atomic programme yet). With the cooperation of the German nuclear scientists, the US managed to build a successful bomb, but not before Germany surrendered in May 1945. At this point, relations between the US and the USSR were steadily deteriorating. So to answer your question: 1. the US did not build the bomb 'IN CASE' of Japan - they never suspected that Japan was trying to build one (but they knew for certain that Germany was building a nuclear bomb). So the nuclear programme BEGAN because they feared the Nazis would build a successful one first. 2. When it became certain that the US would not have to use the bomb on Germany, they were still under immense pressure to complete the project because of the money they had spent on it, and because they feared that they would be in another war with the USSR shortly after the war in Europe had ended. Finally, by using the bomb on Japan: 1. They could avoid a long and costly invasion of Japan and end the war in the pacific quickly. 2. They could show off its strength to the USSR, which had become a new and powerful threat. (MORE)
As the war in the Pacific progressed it became painfully evident that the Japanese were prepared to die themselves to kill the allies (kamikaze and bonsai attack for example). The Japanese government was training women, children, and the old of Japan to fight any invasion by the allies to the death …as well. The Japanese government had convinced its people that death was better than capture. United States dropped the bomb to end the war quickly in an attempt to save lives, even after the first bomb was dropped it toke a second to end the War. (MORE)
The atomic bombs dropped upon the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped to hasten the end of the war with the Japanese .
Because those dirty Japs were killing Americans so we nuked them back to the stone age.
Every other option available to the Allies would have resulted ingreater loss of life. The bombs, in the words of President Harry S.Truman, represented the "least abhorrent choice." See related answers on this site for more information. (spelled asthey appear here) ("Would Operation Downfall have be…en the largest and costliestbattle in history if it was actually executed?") ("Why did the US refuse to accept japans terms for surrender?") (MORE)
They ultimately ended up saving lives. Every other option availableto the Allies would have resulted in more bloodshed than wasexperienced in the bombings, and no other course of action couldhave brought such a speedy end to the war.