• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII?

Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan?

  • yes

    Votes: 72 69.9%
  • no

    Votes: 20 19.4%
  • not sure

    Votes: 11 10.7%

  • Total voters
    103
Allow me to jump in here and ask a question as a person who has been to Hiroshima and who has walked upon that hallowed ground which is one very large... and albeit - one very beautiful cemetery: The USA had at least two atomic bombs, and possibly were very close to at least a third in August of 1945. The idea was to so intimidate Japanese leaders by this massive show of force and destruction that they would have to change their thinking and surrender. And that is what they did after two bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Could the same effect had been achieved had the bomb been dropped on a Japanese island that was uninhabited or nearly so.. or even a portion of the mainland which was sparsely populated?

Would that evidence had possibly achieved the same effect?

Yes of course. We wanted to send a message to Russia. Japan frankly had little to do with it
 
Drop the bomb in Tokyo bay. The mushroom cloud would be seen by everyone. It was a plan that actually was proposed. It would have served every purpose......and killed no one

That is not as convincing as one thought was required. So why take the chance of two months more American deaths?
 
That is not as convincing as one thought was required. So why take the chance of two months more American deaths?

We had two bombs. Why ever take the chance? Some would drop nuclear weapons now on Afghanistan and Syria. Would you?
 
Those civilians blood is on the hands of the Japanese leadership of the time. They started a war against a superior opponent. They committed multiple acts of gross violence, evil and inhumanity, even by the standards of their Nazi German allies. They brainwashed their people into believing in a divine Emperor and an unbeatable Japan and lied to them about the truth of how badly the war was actually going and what was actually being done in said Emperor's name. Most importantly when faced with certain defeat and the prospect of further and ultimately pointless bloodshed on all sides, they refused to end it. They are responsible, not the Americans.

And yet they did end it. They wanted one thing....and we gave it to them
 
Drop the bomb in Tokyo bay. The mushroom cloud would be seen by everyone. It was a plan that actually was proposed. It would have served every purpose......and killed no one

And it wouldn't have hurt the Japanese war effort one iota, so they would have shrugged it off.
 
And it wouldn't have hurt the Japanese war effort one iota, so they would have shrugged it off.
But why not try it. If it works thousands get to live. If it doesn't you have another bomb
 
Basically, the scientists feared that if it didn't work(basically, if the "demonstration" flopped) it would prolong the war even longer.

All of the major scientists involved felt that a "technical demonstration" would not accomplish their aims.

To demonstrate, or not to demonstrate? | Restricted Data

I thought it was up to Truman? Now he is supposed to take advice from the eggheads but ignore advice from the military experts? Really?
 
I thought it was up to Truman? Now he is supposed to take advice from the eggheads but ignore advice from the military experts? Really?

Did you read the link? The military didn't think much of the idea; indeed the idea was never presented to Truman.

And by "eggheads", of course, you mean the people who created the freaking thing in the first place?
 
Did you read the link? The military didn't think much of the idea; indeed the idea was never presented to Truman.

And by "eggheads", of course, you mean the people who created the freaking thing in the first place?
Wait....drop it in the bay. If it doesn't go off you are at the same place if you drop it on Hiroshima and it doesn't go off. There is literally no downside
 
Wait....drop it in the bay. If it doesn't go off you are at the same place if you drop it on Hiroshima and it doesn't go off. There is literally no downside

Except the people who made the damn thing said that they saw no benefit to doing so.
 
But you tell me.....what is the downside to a demonstration?

It doesn't achieve the entire purpose of the bomb in the first place--- ending the war ASAP; it might not work, who would be rather embarrassing and convince the Japanese that they don't have anything to fear from such weapons; and in even if the one does work, and the other was used as a demonstration, Japan could convince themselves it was a fluke.
 
It doesn't achieve the entire purpose of the bomb in the first place--- ending the war ASAP; it might not work, who would be rather embarrassing and convince the Japanese that they don't have anything to fear from such weapons; and in even if the one does work, and the other was used as a demonstration, Japan could convince themselves it was a fluke.

How is it embarrassing? You don't tell them. Trust me they will see the mushroom cloud. And you have another one. What possible downside is their?
 
How is it embarrassing? You don't tell them. Trust me they will see the mushroom cloud. And you have another one. What possible downside is their?

You drop leaflets announcing that you are about to demonstrate a new weapon which will force Japan to surrender, or request that Japan surrender because "say, look out there at Tokyo Bay for a sec". It fizzles. Japan is emboldened.

I already explained the downside in simple terms, and provided a link from the people who created the weapon in the first palace explaining why there was no demonstration.
 
You drop leaflets announcing that you are about to demonstrate a new weapon which will force Japan to surrender, or request that Japan surrender because "say, look out there at Tokyo Bay for a sec". It fizzles. Japan is emboldened.

I already explained the downside in simple terms, and provided a link from the people who created the weapon in the first palace explaining why there was no demonstration.
Why drop leaflets at all? Drop the bomb. Everyone in Tokyo will see it. If it fails you still have the other one
 
You might find it amusing in the fact that so many medical staff were killed or injured and there were only three hospitals left operational after the attack, but I don't.

You've also just acknowledged that it's bull**** to suggest that "The targets of the A-bombs were soldiers, military headquarters, and large weapons factories." The technology used was never going to ensure they were the only targets was it?

Yes as far as the technology of the day would allow the targeting of military targets military was the purpose not the killings of non military targets.

Now if the Japanese government had any concern for their population then they would not had try to either turn them into a spears and bombs carrying force and would had surrender as my father had as must or more right to go on living as any person in those two cities as the US did not start this war or keep it going past all commonsense point.
 
Would you rather have the Japanese starved out ?

Or perhapa an invasion where a million plus are slaughtered.

My guess is that the US troops would had been force to use mass machine guns and flamethrowers to deal with the mass attacks of men women and children that the Japanese was planning on the beachheads.
 
My guess is that the US troops would had been force to use mass machine guns and flamethrowers to deal with the mass attacks of men women and children that the Japanese was planning on the beachheads.

No invasion was needed
 
Why drop leaflets at all? Drop the bomb. Everyone in Tokyo will see it. If it fails you still have the other one

Gee, maybe because you want to warn the civilian populace of the area that you are going to be targeting soon enough? It's what we did historically.

The whole point of the bomb is to force Japan to surrender ASAP. A failure drags things out, especially since people will have to go over the other one with a fine tooth comb to figure out what the heck went wrong.
 
Gee, maybe because you want to warn the civilian populace of the area that you are going to be targeting soon enough? It's what we did historically.

The whole point of the bomb is to force Japan to surrender ASAP. A failure drags things out, especially since people will have to go over the other one with a fine tooth comb to figure out what the heck went wrong.

But you are targeting Tokyo bay. Everyone will see it. If it flopped you just get a small flash. There are no need for leaflets. Think this thru. Truman made the wrong call
 
But you are targeting Tokyo bay. Everyone will see it. If it flopped you just get a small flash. There are no need for leaflets. Think this thru. Truman made the wrong call

Not everyone. Just the relative handful of people who are left in Tokyo and don't take cover in bomb shelters when the aircraft appear. On top of that, with no real lasting damage and no free press, the Japanese government could easily suppress the story. After all, it's not like a major city had just been wiped out.

The scientists themselves--- people who weren't at all bloodthirsty--- rejected your proposal.
 
Back
Top Bottom