Was USA justified in using 2 nuclear weapons during WWII?
From what I've read, the nuclear bombings were used for both a strategic purpose [war manufacturing centers] and as an intimidation tactic to threaten Tokyo into surrender, which they did. Supposedly a land invasion into Japan would have cost far more lives. Thoughts
- Anonymous1 month agoFavorite Answer
Yeah, I think the atomic bombings were justified, at least in the context. The US was preparing for invasions of the Japanese home islands. They had just gotten off of a long campaign to capture Okinawa, a relatively small island which is Japanese but wasn't really considered part of the home islands (the Okinawans are their own ethnic group). That had costs thousands of American lives IIRC and tens of thousands of Japanese lives. The main islands like Honshu were much larger and would presumably be better defended with a Japanese military more motivated to fight. Remember that in real life the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima. It took the US obliterating another city, and the specter that America could keep doing this over and over again, before the Japanese actually gave up. Absent the nuclear weapons they probably would have fought on for a long long time. American war planning expected the invasion of Japan to carry on well into 1946. This would have cost a lot of American lives. But it also would have cost a lot of Japanese lives. It probably would have, in hindsight, cost more lives than were taken by the atomic bombs.
- garryLv 41 month ago
any weapon of mass destruction shouldn't be used in war especially if its used on civilians .war is between 2 armies , not kids and housewives . the bombs killed civilians .
- ArmourorLv 41 month ago
The Builders or the Nuclear weapons UK Canada and the USA all agreed to Use them to end WW2
they also agreed that it would Prove that they w3orked and that we the allies would Use them to end any war
- John PLv 71 month ago
That is one of those questions which can have arguments up, down, and round the sides.
What is probable is that it is fortunate that the only use of nuclear weapons in war was was at a very early stage of their development, when they were small in power compared with later developments. Those two had similar destructive and killing power to all the bombs dropped in each 'thousand bomber raid' over various German cities in the last few months of WW2 in Europe.
The shock and awe came from the fact that it was one single bomb, dropped from one single aircraft, which did all that destruction in a few seconds.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- FLv 61 month ago
Yes, Japan treated prisoners of war far worse than the Germans did and committed as many atrocities. And if they were going to surrender anyway, didn’t they do it after the first bomb?
And let’s not forget, they started it.
- capitalgentlemanLv 71 month ago
As both Canada, and the UK had to agree to their use (all three countries worked on the bombs together), there was enough information for those three countries to agree to their use. And, even then it took two of them to convince Japan to surrender. Invading Japan would have been terrifically expensive in terms of personnel, and materiel. As had been seen on retaking Pacific Islands. While controversial with hindsight, it made the most sense at that time.
- Anonymous1 month ago
They were not Nuclear Weapons.
They were Atomic Weapons
- 1 month ago
Four months before the nuclear bombings, the USAF flew over Tokyo dropping kerosene then returned dropping phosphorus bombs. The resulting firestorm killed more people than the atom bombs killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Japan wanted to surrender but there was a delay because they wanted to do so with honour. While the politicians dithered, Japanese troops were still fighting Allied soldiers and starving civilians to death in prison camps. The USA had developed the atom bomb but wanted to see what effect it would have if dropped on a city. Now we know.
- nathaan27Lv 51 month ago
If your question is "was USA justified in today's climate to send nuclear bombs?" The answer would be "no". But back then, it was something completely new and we had no idea of the raw power we had harnessed. We knew we had something big and we wanted to end the war. It's the age old question of "We knew we could, but nobody asked if we should".
- 1 month ago
I knew a guy who fought in the Pacific theater. Every now and then he would talk about the war and when he did he often said that we didn't drop nearly enough atom bombs on the Japanese.