The day is July 16th 1945. You are the president of the United States of America. The war in the pacific is now almost entirely focussed on the Japanese mainland and the time for a bloody and terrible invasion is fast approaching. There have been over 100,000 american casualties already and your people are sick of this war. The Japanese government is pretty much controlled by the delusional and headstrong military. There are many trying to act rationally but you do not know this, nor do you know they are training women and children to fight invaders with bamboo spears. All you see is a country set on rejecting unconditional surrender no matter the cost, which to some degree was what Japan was. Today you have received a top secret letter that informs you the "gadget" has for the first time in human history been successfully tested and furthermore has performed above all expectations ~ it will be ready for field use soon. In 6 days you will give your signature of approval and 12 days from then hiroshima will be leveled to the ground killing about 50,000 people instantly. In the grander scheme you have altered the future forever. By making it public that such a weapon exists you have corrupted the world with regards to nuclear and atomic bombs. Now this and the subsequent bombing of Nagasaki ended the war and saved 10s if not 100s of thousands of american lives. But was it the right thing to do? I leave that decision in your capable hands Mr. President...
The right thing to do is relative. If you intend to end a war, while getting as few americans killed as possible in the process. Then there is no better option than the atom bomb. These bombs were being worked on by more than just the USA. These bombs would have reared their head at some point whether we dropped it ourselves or not. Currupted the world? Thats a little dramatic. People were "corrupt" Long before technology allowed us to develop this weapon.
Japan and German scientists were not far behind in the development of atomic weapons, so I don't think we corrupted the world by using it first. It was the right decision to drop it because it saved lives in the end. It would have taken hundreds of thousands, maybe a million soldiers to invade Japan conventionally.
I for one am glad they dropped it. My grandfather was on a ship sailing to be one of the first waves to land on Japan for the invasion. He most likely would have been killed on that island. So if it weren't for the dropping of the bomb I most likely would not be here. But I am going to say it was a terrible loss of life and I wish the human race would have learned from the destructiveness that it is but we are doomed to kill each other for ever it seems. "Aftershock" Is a really good book it tells the story of the Manhattan project. very interesting highly recommended.
Maybe americans weren't killed but millions of Japanese died. Aren't we all humans? skin comes out different because of where you live. War is horrendous and no one should have the power to kill so many people at a word. why would you want to be the first to kill so many people? But to OP I don't know, its such a dilemma, I can't imagine the stress it would cause and I hope I never have to make a decision like that.
im only asking for opinions people im not saying it was the right or wrong thing i respect your opinion on the morality but this was not the case at all. For one thing the germans had already lost the war and were being sliced and diced by the allies. Japan had similarly been ravished and was in no way able to carry out such a feat outside of the conceptual basis they were spread thin as it was. We know now that they werent even close. Now here is the thing that gets me people. I know that nuclear weapons were inevitable and that they would be with us today regardless. But take into consideration the effect that mushroom cloud had on people. After August 6th 1945 every country was snapped awake to the reality of nuclear weapons, not just the dream of them. Suddenly Russia who was finally able to focus on rebuilding its shelled cities stepped up its nuclear program hardcore. Why? because Stalin no longer thought nukes were possible, he knew they were. If we hadnt bombed hiroshima the nuclear program of every country would not have been as quick to respond as it was and the world may have been introduced to our friend the A bomb through footage of explosions in deserts and oceans. would their presence be any different if they werent introduced to us by the bombing a city? Is there an argument that it was better that it happened this way?
Did not say it was a good thing. I said it was the most effective solution to the problem of killing more of them without killing an assload of ourselves. The Japanese Should not have attacked the US if they were worried about taking casualties. And for a correction to your statement that it killed millions.
No, I don't think it was the right thing to do. Intentionally killing innocent civilians is never the right thing to do.
And your blaming the corruption on the USA dropping the bomb? Clearly the corruption lies within Stalin whom chose to pursue Nuclear weapons, instead of Nuclear energy, or other projects. Yes the REALITY of MUTUAL DESTRUCTION was realized the day we dropped the bomb. That day the world realized that nuclear world meant EVERONE INVOLVED would die. Whats a better detterent against a bomb that would have been used at some point any way? Seeing the results CLEARLY shows what would happen if we waged Nuclear war. Germany WAS working on enriching radioactive fuel when we began working on the bomb ourselves. Yes they were defeated before we dropped the bomb. However Without them working towards the same goal, we would not have started on it ourselves. Should the USA have abandoned the project once Germany was defeated? "Corruption" which would have occurred at some point anyway.
im not blaming anyone im not trying to point fingers like a little bitch and im not trying to fight you. this is a real life situation and im just trying to look at it. if you feel so passionately about this that you feel the need to get personally offended please leave.
Intentionally killing people who don't want to fight is deplorable. Sadly, any move made by a country in which civilians were preyed upon seems to have made the largest impacts, and generated the most results. What reason do you have to believe I'm offended? I'm giving my opinions just like you asked.
There is so much fallacy and basing your opinions on false history, like this one: "The Japanese Should not have attacked the US if they were worried about taking casualties." maybe we shouldn't have forced japan into attacking us? FDR provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
Sorry, But documents proving that the United states took action to make it CLEAR that they would be agressive in fighting back should other countries continue their agression, does not convince me that " we should not have provoked japan."
We cut off their oil supply so they were forced into attacking us so they could have oil and function as a country. If you would do some research and read my link I gave you
How is attacking us going to give them access to oil supply? Are you pretending that a country that was pouring resources into invading other countries, through means of force, was forced into attacking us so that they could "support themselves?" America cut off supplies that we were sending, and worked to cut of supplies from people we were freindly with, in order to slow agression. However I don't doubt the president was itching to get into the war. While this tactic did not work, and they STILL expended resources in order to take a shot at coming to get at ours, we did manage to come up with a a couple reasons for the japanese to stop....... I did, but i happen to think about things slightly deeper than the face value its offered up at.
Then why was he telling the people otherwise, so your fine with a leader who lies to his people and brings them into war because "He" thinks its the right thing to do.
Please illustrate to me the part where i said i was fine with the government lying to me in order to commit war? Just to be clear here, my stance on this, is that you have to choose a way in which to rationalize your decision. You have to choose between statistics and numbers, or morality. Its obviously morally deplorable. And it obviously make complete sense as far as number go to drop the bombs. If your goal is to do what makes the most sense for saving Americans, and ending the war quicker than conventional methods, regardless of the morality. It's the right move. In my eyes, your fucked if you say yes, your fucked if you say no. There is no possible " good" outcome to these types of situations. There is no winner in war. There is just somebody who loses less. I have to say id choose to be the one that loses the least.