Was dropping the atomic bomb worth the massive death rate in japan? -

Was dropping the atomic bomb worth the massive death rate in japan? What would the death rate have been if the war with japan continued? Which dropped bomb was most deadly?

Yes ....we are not speaking german ....

What most people don t realize about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that fewer people died from either bomb than were killed in the firebombings of Dresden, Germany, and the firebombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities. The Japanese were already trying to find a way to surrender when the first bomb dropped. The second hastened the process. But had neither bomb dropped, it is quite likely that Japan would have surrendered before we tried to invade. Intentional targeting of civilians has occurred throughout history. Just in WWII, the Germans were bombing London and other English cities, and Warsaw. The Allies targeted German cities that had no military value - Dresden, in particular. General Curtis LeMay was the architect of Dresden, and the firebombing of Japanese cities commenced after the war in Europe ended and he took charge of the AAF in the Pacific. Terroristic? Maybe. A valid way to bring an opponent to the surrender table? Sometimes.

Question 1: we got a pretty good bang for our buck Question 2: at the rate the war was going, many, many more American lives would have been lost Question 3: the one that was dropped on Nagasaki did the most property and radiation damage, per capita Did we do the right thing? That was another time, another place, and the people in that time and place had no history of the Atomic Bomb to look at, in order to determine quot;if it was worth itquot;.. Unlike recent wars and engagements, during WWII, the bottom line is, quot;we re going to win the warquot;. We had a weapon that we thought that thru it s use, the war would come to a swift conclusion. They were right. Hindsight being 20/20, one could argue now that it was quot;overkillquot;. That s why now, all the world leaders are constantly worrying about proliferation, and Iran getting the bomb, etc. We now have a history to look at. We KNOW what happens now when an atomic bomb goes off.

Yes, it was worth it. The conventional bombing of Tokyo actually killed more than both atomic bombs combined did. At the time US military thought the death rate would be a over one million if there was a invasion of mainland Japan. The Japanese Army had written orders to execute all POW, Chinese, and Korean slave labors in Japan once an invasion was begun, there where around 250,000 of them. The US Military thought there own casualty rate would be so high they started to prepare for the amount of wound they would have by, among other things, stockpiling Purple Heart Medal. The US Army has not had to buy new Purple Hearts since. The ones that where issued for Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan are still the ones that where bought for the invasion of Japan. In fact Americans that where German POWs where on the West Coast being trained to take part in the invasion of Japan because it was that that that many soldiers would be needed. The first bomb dropped was the weaker of the two, but it killed the most people

Well its all relative. What do you mean quot;worth itquot;. Morally it was a hard decision, but you had to weigh it against the advising staff of the time that was saying that if the United States had to do a land invasion of japan, expect to lose substantial numbers ( I don t remember the exact number as was stated on the history channel so I won t speculate). The United State s goal was to inflict as much damage as possible while sustaining as little damage as possible. So considering it stopped us from having to invade mainland japan, I would say it was worth it.

It was absolutely worth it. It saved more Japanese lives than it took. Yes a lot ot people died when the bombs were dropped but look at the loss of life in the attack on Iwo Jima. That kind of fanatic defense of the main Japanese Islands could have been overcome but at a terrible price. Look at the fight for Okinawa the same fanaticism cost hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. Okinawa is a relatively small island. Adjust the scale for the larger islands of Japan and you can see that the losses would have far exceeded the numbers lost in the atomic bombing.

The argument goes something like this: We killed 100,000 people to save 1,000,000 soldiers who would have died during a ground assault. That s true, but it doesn t justify killing tens of thousands of women and children. Today we have a word for people who intentionally target civilians - terrorist.

It wasn t worth it, in my opinion. I understand we needed to drop the bomb in order to stop, but it just seemed a little too much.

The use of those two weapons (Japan obviously should have surrendered after Hiroshima) actually saved more lives than it took by preventing the need for a mainland invasion of Japan.

They estimated that two million Americans would have lost their lives if we attacked mainland Japan with troops. The Japanese warriors were all about honor and dying rather than surrendering was more honorable.

Depends. The Japanese would probably say, quot;Hell No!quot; Americans who had to fight the desperate Japanese would probably say, quot;Hell Yes!quot; I wasn t born until 30 years after the fact, so who am I to say?

If you were an Allied soldier/Marine in the Pacific theater it sure as heck was worth it. No apologies here, Japan brought the entire situation on themselves.

Absolutely worth it.

Oh, most definitely!

ask the democrats To date they are the only party to use atomic weapons

yes. much higher. the quot;fire bombingquot; campaigns in Japan killed FAR more people than Both atomic bombs combined !

yes it was worth it god i hate people who think ww2 was a bad war to fight in

yes... any thing that ends that war is fine by me..

yes we warned that we would do it and they didnt believe it so we did they had the chance to save themselves