What are the pros of the dropping of the Atomic bomb?

Answer 1

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 1940'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.

Answer 2

Why the bomb was needed or justified:

• The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender.
• With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.
• An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
• The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.
• Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its Horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.
• The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.

• Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.
• American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.
• A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.
• Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.
• The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.
• The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.
• Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
• Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.

Answer 3

The positive side of dropping the atomic bomb was that it shortened the war, it saved both American/Allied soldiers-saliors and marines countless lives and the Japanese military-civilians from being totally wiped out.The negative side of dropping the atomic bomb was the radition sickness of those who didn't die in the bomb blast and the fact that nearby food and watersupply were now containated with radition from the a-bomb blast.There was no known way of treating those with radition sickness.

------------------------

The decisions to drop the Uranium bomb at Hiroshima and the Plutonium bomb at Nagasaki were a convenient and alternative consideration to the current war plans that were already being prepared for. These were conventional war plans that were given the code names "Operation Olympic" and "Operation Coronet".

Typically, Olympic and Coronet, like all military operations, were first rationalized and justified against the overall goals of the military campaign. They were then rigorously planned with great attention given to calculating integrated logistics support and the minimizing of human and economic losses. Therefore, having exercised all these considerations for Operations Olympic and Coronet, which by the way was a plan to invade the Japanese homeland, the United States (calling the shots) then needed to consider the new "bomb" alternative.

On the one side, ordering the implementation of Olympic and Coronet will require, at a minimum, one additional year of war with associated costs and also loss of approximately one million lives, both Allies and Japanese.

But the other consideration was the bombs, with far less economic cost and loss of life.

This "mathematical" decision should not appear easy.

A sudden loss of life in a day, albeit less, is a far more profound reality than the loss of life that occurs over the longer course of a year. Also, the realities of a calculated conventional military operation cannot be well understood or appreciated if they never will have occurred, which is the case for Olympic and Coronet. The fact that these operations never occurred means that there is no one to argue the merits or folly of having progressed through the war for yet another year.

Answer 4

I never state a war action as a pro. All war actions are not good. The pros here came from a link named "

Pros of Dropping the Atomic Bomb"

The pros for dropping the bomb are that the war ended faster when Japan saw how devastating the atomic bomb was. The atomic bomb leveled both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the United States had not dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, then the United States would have been forced to invade Japan, which was making preparations for the invasion. The thought process with dropping the bomb was that it would save hundreds of thousands of American soldier's lives. With dropping the atomic bomb, the United States had to be the one's making the atomic bomb. So even though many lives were lost in using this weapon, with the United States developing it first, this helped in preventing other nations developing it first, which may have led to an atomic bomb being used on us. Many Japanese civilians were reported starving to death and this was a result of the Japanese Army taking all of the food, leaving little left for regular families. By dropping the atomic bomb, there was the tragedy of civilians dying, however with a drawn out war with Japan, how many of those civilians would have died from starvation? Would it have been more than the casualties lost by the atomic bomb? Another pro was that after dropping the atomic bomb, all POW soldiers were released from Japan! With the atomic bomb, The United States would become a superpower. The United States had always tried to keep peace, and having the atomic bomb gave it the leverage needed, as other nations saw the devastation created by this weapon, which ha led to negotiations and peace talks rather than war.

Answer 5

Killing of 150,000 innocent civilians and many more terribly wounded.

Answer 6

Seriously, are there any? Seriously yes : The number of lives lost in the Invasion of Japan by conventional forces would have been astronomical, on both sides.

Answer 7

Some pros about dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was that the Allies wouldn't have to risk millions of lives during an invasion of Japan itself, a country that would never surrender.

Answer 8

It ended the war and collapse Japan's means to make war ever again.

Answer 9

The bombs ended the war with Japan , it brought peace to the region and it eliminated the influence of the Japanese military upon Japanese politics .