It's arguable whether a land invasion would ultimately have caused more civilian casualties than use of the A-bomb or not. Consequently there is involved a bomb having the most cruel effects humanity has ever known. The Americans had the opportunity of demonstrating the power of the bomb on a deserted area and showing the Japanese what they were facing. Both sides of the issue have very justifiable arguments. The firebombing raid on Tokyo alone killed 100,000 civilians on the night of March 9—10, 1945, causing more civilian death and destruction than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Soon the United States found out Germany had been trying to come up with a secret weapon by experimenting with splitting the atom.
Then I would recall that I was a Christian, elected by Christians, and that the generals were saying that to slaughter the Japs would be unChristian barbarism. He knew that each Pacific island taken had entailed increasing casualties. In doing so we also set the stage for a new era of cold war, peace through ultimate terror and fear of global annihilation. This reoriented the B-29 campaign away from urban incendiary attacks in favor of a massive attack on Japan's railroad system. The attack by Soviet forces, smashing the Kwantung Army and liberating Manchuria, Northern Korea, Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, led to the rapid conclusion of the war in the Far East. But I often wonder about what the intent really was. The nuclear weapons of 1945 are substantially smaller compared to the thermonuclear weapons we have now.
I guess they don't have the luxury of self righteous indignation about the bombs since they lived the dream. A complete blockade of Japan could have been done but politicians overruled the military commanders. Shouldn't the bombs have been dropped on a predominantly military target like on the frontline? I, also, stated that neither side had an advantage in the landings at Normandy; because neither side had full knowledge of the terrain. Harm caused to civilians must be proportional to military ends and any harm caused must be necessary for the achievement of military goals. Chaitin, Julia, Aiko Swasa, and Dan Bar-On.
The readiness of Japanese soldiers to fight hopelessly was a given, but the willingness of civilians to do the same was unnerving estimated civilian casualties run from 42,000 to 150,000 dead from battle and suicide. For example, they took off with fighter jets and bombers, killing 2,403 people and wounding 1,178. And radiation continues to damage the human body. It had been a war of many atrocities and reprisals, from the Rape of Nanking onwards. Also, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima effectively decided the use of atomic technology for weapons for the future.
At that time it was still unknown if the bombs would be ready in time for a fall invasion of Japan or for that matter even work at all. The bulk of the force invading Japan would be American although the British Commonwealth would contribute three divisions of troops one each from the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. He had seen Tokyo burn to the gates of his palace. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender. Ultimately, the atomic bombs did what they were designed to do.
General MacArthur's staff provided an estimated range of American deaths depending on the duration of the invasion, and also estimated a 22:1 ratio of Japanese to American deaths. Japan refused… 1244 Words 5 Pages United States of America dropped the Atomic Bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Others were more sanguine; the Army Quartermaster General ordered 370,000 Purple Hearts in anticipation of the final campaigns. The second atomic bombing, on Nagasaki, came only three days after the bombing of Hiroshima, when the devastation at Hiroshima had yet to be fully comprehended by the Japanese. The United States fought in both Europe and in the Pacific for almost five years before the United States made the decision to drop the two atomic bombs. Were the Americans justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945? America had 100% air superiority over Japanese skies and 100% sea superiority in Japanese waters.
The obliterations caused by the atomic bombs were simply and truthfully horrific, yet in war, horrific is a common definitive. Both bombs took the lives of about 200,000 Japanese. The Japanese Army resisted to the end, there was a coup attempt, and then a mutiny even after the peace was announced. It was a terrible thing, but terrible things always happen in war. The humane viewpoint of the bombing is mute to, for at the time there were so many compiled atrocities by the Japanese military that point-counter point is a foolish and senseless endeavor. Furthermore, the bomb was a gruesome, powerful weapon, the effects of it were quite macabre. Intercontinental ballistic missiles were still a gleam in the military eye.
Dropping of the first bomb on Hiroshima was the right choice of the American military. Germany did not know the land much better than the Allies. Charlottesville, Virginia: Center for National Security Law, School of Law, University of Virginia. My Dad was there, he came in to the fight in a glider, he landed in a hedge row area. A subsequent military coup, intended to silence the Emperor, failed. In addition, about 90,000 people died at the impact of the bomb, with about 60,000 more casualties over the next four months. Damn right using the A-Bomb was justified.