a hot button issue even today. regardless of age or generation. should we have dropped the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki????
>>
in April of 45 US forces invaded the island of Okinawa with the intension of using it as a staging area for the invasion of the empire. but on August 6, 1945 that all changed as a lone B-29 named Enola Gay dropped the first A Bomb, named "little man," on a city. and Hiroshima disappeared under a cloud of ashes
>>
3 days later a 2nd B-29 named Bockscar dropped "fat boy" on on Nagasaki. reducing it to rubble.
>>
on August 14 the Japanese announed terms for surrender. and on Sept 2 signed the surrender on board the USS Missouri in Tokyo bay.

>
>
----------------------------------------------------------

finally on sept 2nd it all comes to an end on the USS Missouri


I say yes because god knows how many Americans would have died invading the empire. ests were 1 million American dead. many servicemen thanked god and Harry Truman for saving their lives. and so did their families.
how many Japanese would have perished in this invasion ??? opinions ???.....................

Not this again...

At least ten times as many people would have died had we been forced to invade the mainland...the answer is obvious to me.

hey pal you not required to answer if you don't want to. it is a moral and ethical issue that changed the world we live in.

One of the points of the A-Bomb was to show Japan our raw power. What if we showed them what the A-Bomb could potentially do instead of without warning dropping a massive bomb on a populated place? The Japaneese government was obviously afraid of our power and that's why the surrendered. Why couldn't we scare them without actually killing so many people?

Well, if that wouldn't work then I would rather have hundreds of thousands die instead of a few million.

__________________
"Hard work without talent is a shame, but talent without hard work is a tragedy." -fortune cookie

actually we did consider inviting a japanese delegation to witness a test firing on an island. but it was scrapped. if it failed they would be even more empowerd to fight on. it was a new "gadget".

Well, wouldn't you say it would have atleast been better to get their attention? I'm sure there were less populated places where they could have set off the bomb.

__________________
"Hard work without talent is a shame, but talent without hard work is a tragedy." -fortune cookie

a deserted island was the best place. but would it detonate???? they had no idea. yes I wish they could have pulled it off.

But why does it matter where they set it off? Perhaps little boy might not have detonated at all either. Fortunately or unfortunately it did, so that would mean if they tried it on a (not necessarily a deserted island) less populated area then it would have worked there.

__________________
"Hard work without talent is a shame, but talent without hard work is a tragedy." -fortune cookie

would you want to be there when it goes off ????? less populated meaning there are people around?????
your telling me you want a front row seat. confused

What's really interesting is that the Atomic bomb gets so much more attention than the bombing of Dresden and the fire bombing of Japan. Sure the atomic bomb was a mighty weapon, but in its use it was never the deadliest one during WWII. Not to mention there is actually some justification of using the atomic bomb depending on how you view history. Anyway, this is how I see it. The US was going into some serious debt due to WWII, the Japanese had proven to be an absolutely terrible enemy, and here was this terrible weapon that could end the war without having to fight the Japan tooth and nail.

Hindsight isn't 20-20, and only the few make these kind of decisions. Whether it was right, wrong is especially hard to tell because even with hindsight there is no telling what would of or what would have not happened in this case.

what was the deadliest in your opinion???

also Japan was trying to make its own A bomb to use against us. just as Hitler was

link

link

For there to be any impact at all it needs to effect the lives of the Japanese. For that to happen the bomb must land in place where there's atleast people and roads and such so it effects the government. That way it would atleast get attention and they will know what kind of power the US holds over Japan. They didn't need to display their might while killing hundreds of thousands. Better a few thousand than hundreds of thousands.

__________________
"Hard work without talent is a shame, but talent without hard work is a tragedy." -fortune cookie

I believe the Japanese knew about the first A-bomb that was exploded in New Mexico, and the US did ask for their surrender after that.

__________________
Politics for Smart People Please stop by and leave some comments.
Sensible Alternative Energy

for me, there has always been an irony to the dropping of the bombs: when the bombs were dropped, Japan was at its weakest in perhaps 50 years. Their ability to wage war had been all but demolished, their navy decimated, they had no access to the resources they needed (which prompted their expansion to begin with) to wage offensive warfare. Now one has to ask, given this, was an invasion even needed? did anyone ever consider a blockade? Japan was in no position to cause trouble in the pacific and interfere with western trade interests (the origins of the pacific war). Was not the war won in all practical purposes?

I think the motivation to drop the bomb had to lie with fear of Soviet expansion and other post war interests. "The boys will all die" was the easiest argument to sell to the American public.

__________________

It was weak. It neither effected or scared the Japanese. It needed an impact for the scare tactic to work (perhaps destroying a network of roads or a town with a low population).

__________________
"Hard work without talent is a shame, but talent without hard work is a tragedy." -fortune cookie