What are arguments for and against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Answer 1

For: It was the fastest way to end the war with Japan which saved many allied lives. Also, here's a little published fact. Japan's attempt to launch a Nuclear (yes Nuclear) attack on the United States was eminent and therefore, a speedy end to the war was needed. Against: We would have beaten Japan anyway and so there was no need to use such a devastating method.

Answer 2

For: It was the fastest way to end the war with Japan which saved many allied lives. Also, here's a little published fact. Japan's attempt to launch a Nuclear (yes Nuclear) attack on the United States was eminent and therefore, a speedy end to the war was needed. Against: We would have beaten Japan anyway and so there was no need to use such a devastating method.

Answer 3

Arguments for: We were at war and it was estimated that a million or more American servicemen would die (not to mention huge numbers of wounded) over the course of a multi-year invasion of the Japanese home islands, followed by a likely guerrilla resistance, if massive force was not used to get the Japanese to surrender. Years after the bombs were dropped, it was also suggested that fewer Japanese had died under the two bombs than would have died had there been a conventional invasion.

Arguments against: It was an inappropriate attack on civilian centers that had increased in population because those cities had not previously been bombed during the war. A demonstration on an uninhabited site, to which the Japanese were invited in advance, should have been attempted first. (It was considered and thought to be impractical.) The atomic bomb was a new and terrible weapon and should not have been used. (Argued after the fact.)

Answer 4

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 for 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.

Answer 5

Americans wanted to test something new.....

Answer 6

its gay its gay