Ch 7: Japan's Defeat in WWII

[History PYSS]

Do you think it was justified for the US to drop the atomic bombs in 1945 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[rafi....@gmail.com]

Japan could not sustain the war effort and was already attempting to negotiate for a peace settlement. It would only have been a matter of time before Japan would have completely lost its ability to sustain the war. The level of destruction and damage (in terms of property, loss of lives, radiation and other effects) unleashed by the atomic bomb were UNPRECEDENTED. The first and second atomic bombs should not have been used to force Japan to surrender. 

Mr Rafi

[samue...@gmail.com]

By August 1945, the war in Europe had been over some 3 months. The American public back home was anxious for the Pacific War to end, and were not keen to lose so many more young American soldiers in the vicious "island-hopping" campaign. It was clear that, while Japan was militarily weakening, her soldiers just refused to surrender. Every inch of Japanese soil (even Iwo Jima and Okinawa) would be defended to the death. America had the scientific technology to end the war, though with devastating effect. As such, they were justified in dropping the A bombs. 

[tayyua...@gmail.com]

Yes.Because if Japan was not bombed, they will continue their destruction and more people will suffer Thus it is justified for US to bomb japan

[crystal...@gmail.com]

Yes. Because if US did not bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan will continue to invade more countries...

[sam.c...@gmail.com]

Yes and no,

Yes, the Japanese has refused to surrender despite already suffering heavy casualties and losing their pride in the second half of the war. If the USA had not dropped the A bomb, the amount of time spent on the war effort would be prolonged and  more resources would be poured in to winning the war. Japan's refusal the surrender showed the USA that the Japanese were willing to die for the victory of their country and would do anything to get such results despite the loss of innocent lives. Young American soldiers were risking their lives to help rid the world of such an event. Risking everything they have to free the innocent Japanese and their fellow future soldiers to prevent more bloodshed, they poured in their blood and tears to free the future generations. Thus dropping the atomic bomb at this cost was worth the risk and innocent lives to get Japan to surrender.

No, dropping of the atomic bomb lead to the USSR discovering of such potential weapons of destruction, leading to the Cold war, the atomic bomb has also lead to birth defects thru the generations and killed too many innocent civilians that had nothing to do with the war. However if the USA had destroyed important air bases and military camps they could severely crippling the Japanese defenses. It would be only a matter of time before the Empire collapses onto its knee,due to inability to continue sustaining the war effort. Ending the war slower at the expense of lesser innocent civilians. Atomic powered weapons could have been prevented and the world would not have been divided into two blocs, the Eastern bloc(USSR) and the Western block(USA). Throwing the war into a period of darkness and close to an all out full scale nuclear warfare.

Thus we cannot blame the USA for dropping the Atomic bomb onto Japan as it was a really tough decision to make in order to bring the world into a better era. However due to their Pacifist ideology they should not have dropped the Atomic bomb onto Japan if they were to know that the world will enter the cold war era. But the same idea bring them to a closure of the war as soon as possible or they will be viewed as a no action talk only nation. Which may have been good as it has created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and United Nations. Some larger countries would be unable to produce enough electricity if it was not for the nuclear plants.

 Thus, yes the American dropping the atomic bomb helped the world to flourished faster. But,no as countries such as North Korea possesses nuclear powered weapons, and was close to bringing the world to an end by nuclear war.

Samuel Chen 

402

9:59:34

18/2/16

[samue...@gmail.com]

You have all made some really valid points so far. It was truly a difficult decision made to bomb civilians, and one that was not taken lightly. But after 6 years of war in Europe and 4 in the Pacific, and the intransigence of Japan, it seemed like the A bomb was the surest way to end the fighting, even if at a ghastly cost. So, Yuan Chun and Crystal, you're both spot on with that. 

Regarding the point made by Mr S.C. about the A bomb leading to the Cold War - while this is true in hindsight (now in 2016 when we look back), I don't think that was a foremost thought among the Allies then. But that's a good point none the less.