Was dropping the atomic on japan justified by the Unites States? -

Did we really need to drop it or would an invasion of japan worked. did we want to show our power?

we dropped it to avoid an invasion of japan, but it was wrong. we nuked a civilian target, they bombed pearl harbor, a military site. it avoided a prolonged invasion, but it was wrong.

Some question has been raised if the A-bombs even did end the war. It seems the Japanese military machine was pretty much indifferent to civilian casualties, and it was actually the U.S.S.R. s late entry into the war against Japan that prompted Japan to surrender. But anyway, it s really hard to answer this question without having been there. You ve been at war for 4 years, and you re bleeding the youth of your nation, and there s only a bloody, prolonged end in sight. But now this Device is available, that you believe will end the war in a week. Yes, it causes horrendous civilian casualties, but heck, both sides have been killing civilians on large orders since the war began, so that s little moral obstacle (the firebombing of Dresdan killed more civilians than Hiroshima). So use it, and get it over with. I think that has a lot to do with the thinking of the time. And consider this: If you had a child in the military in the Pacific, or you yourself were there, wouldn t you want this device to be used? Personally, however, I think the U.S. would have established a higher moral ground had it done a quot;demonstrationquot; bombing on an unpopulated area of Japan first with an A-Bomb, and then given both a warning and an ultimatium to end the war. But it s unlikely this would have worked. Japan wasn t ready to quit even after Hiroshima (it took two bombs to end the war). And there was some question about the reliability of the atomic arsenal, such that the government didn t want to quot;wastequot; bombs on non-target areas.

Read a little history, my friend. Put yourself in that time period. An invasion on mainland Japan would ve cost an estimated one million allied casualties. Assuming a 3 to 1 defender/assault ration. That d be about 300K Japanese killed as well, or easily more. So, one million of our guys would ve died, or been severely injured had we not dropped the bomb. About 300K Japanese would die either way. They started it. They got it. It was a no-brainer to drop it. I ll even give you a little more. It was strongly argued by some of the scientists on the Manhattan Project, that a demonstration should take place. They wanted Japanese emissaries to see the first test in the desert. They thought that would convince the Japanese to surrender w/o having to drop it. In later years, these people would ve been tagged as quot;Liberals.quot; Their ideas weren t based in reality. I ll mention Russia for you to ponder on as well. I m glad they re teaching this in school. I think it rates SLIGHTLY higher in importance to what the Sumatrans did 5K yrs. ago......

For all pratical purposes, the war was all ready over. We had won in Germany and could now focus our full efforts in the Pacific. Instead, we choose to show the world our military might. It worked. Was it justified? No. Japan still won the war. How? Because their purpose of going to war was to trade with the US. What was the result? We started trading with Japan. So - from a military standpoint, the USA won. But, if you look at the root cause of the war.... Japan got what they wanted.

The debate goes on.... From what I ve read and understand about the events - I tend to believe that an invasion would have prolonged the war and increased casualties, on both sides. I believe it was better to end it sooner, rather than later, with fewer casualties.