Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

? asked in Politics & GovernmentMilitary · 3 months ago

Was the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?

So many innocent civilians died in such brutal, disgusting, painful ways and it's just terrifying to hear the literal horror stories of survivors. There just had to be another option to win the war.

-https://www.worldtribune.org/2017/08/drawings-atom...

-https://nuclear-news.net/2013/05/14/the-horror-of-...

-https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-w...

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 3 months ago

    The "other" option was a land invasion of the home Japanese islands. This however, was expected to cost a million allied casualties, 200,000 of these deaths. A million Japanese lives were expected to be lost. It funny few critics complain about the fire-bombings of Japan or Germany. These bombings often killed more than any single atomic bombing. The atomic bombings saved lives in the long run on both sides.

    Other issues were involved too. Truman would have been eventually impeached when it became known he had a method of ending the war without a million allied/American causalities but didn't use it because it wasn't "sporting"! Japan started the war and there was no interest in playing "fair" with them, especially since they knew they were loosing the war and WOULD NOT capitulate. What about their moral obligation to their own people?

    In addition, an American invasion of Japan wouldn't have been ready until November 1945 and expected to last well into 1946 or 47, The Russians were on a rampage for a land grab in China. They could have conquered China, all of Korea and Northern Japan by then.   

  • Daniel
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    The other option was a long drawn out invasion of Japan, that would have resulted in more death and suffering.

    Also, do you realize that during WWII, the Allies carpet bombed and fire bombed a lot of Axis cities?   Using atomic bombs just meant that pretty much the same result was achieved using one bomber per city instead of a fleet of them.  The Japanese mistakenly chose to not engage either of those B-29s.

  • 3 months ago

    Your question makes it look like your public schools did a rather poor job when it comes to teaching you about the history of WW2.

    .

    It is estimated that by using the atomic bombs the continuation of the war was stopped and in doing so an additional 2 million allied lives and 5 million Japanese lives were saved, that would have been lost had the allies invaded the Japanese home islands.

  • ?
    Lv 6
    3 months ago

    Yes they were. Weep for all the civilians in the rest of the world who died due to the empire of Japan. They started the war with their invasions of China and southeast Asia and Korea, and later most of the rest of Asia. They raped and killed indiscriminately. It didn't matter if their victims were small girls or old women. The US warned them about the new weapon that would be used against them, and cautioned them to surrender. They refused. They even refused a 2nd time AFTER the first bomb was dropped, and the US threatened a 2nd bombing. They finally surrendered after the 2nd bombing, and the war ended. The Americans would have had to invade the home island, costing a projected million more lives lost due to the empire of Japan. The consensus was that those lives should be Japanese instead of American.That was the right decision, IMHO. The empire of Japan killed 2 of my mother"s brothers, and wounded my father. They were correct when they said after they bombed Pearl harbor, that they feared they had awakened a sleeping tiger.

  • Mrsjvb
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    Continuing the status quo would have meant the war lasting many more years than it did, with far more casualties ( yes, including civilian ones) as costing way more money.  

  • Jeff S
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    Unfortunately yes because of conditions in Japan at that time. The Japanese government mostly consisted it's military. The military was readying the civilians to fight the American invaders.

    So America was looking at hundreds of thousands of casualties with millions of Japanese deaths.

  • 3 months ago

    Yes, they started it. We ended it, period.

  • 3 months ago

    From my understanding, yes it was. It reduced the war by several years. WWII is ranked #1 in terms of American casualties. If the war went on for 2 or 3 years, the number would be close to 1 million. 

  • ?
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    The other option was for Japan NOT to have attacked us in the first place.  THEY realize their government’s responsibility of the consequences of their actions, why don’t you???     You talk about horrible deaths.....you do know of the medical experiments done on captured US airmen and other prisoners........right???  If not,  you should research that and hope you’ll be able to sleep again. 

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.