Poll: were the nukes dropped on japan in WW2 really needed to win?
- Thread starter cryogeist
- Start date
No, but it sure helped. No land invasion of the island was required, and it really sped up the surrender process.
The Japanese were prepared to fight down to their last soldier. And then some. It was/is part of their culture.
Sure the nukes were harsh and bloody, but they may have avoided a much larger bloodshed.
Sure the nukes were harsh and bloody, but they may have avoided a much larger bloodshed.
They weren't needed to win. They certainly helped though. And America and Russia both wanted Japan. Things might have gotten a lot worse if America hadn't made such a show of force.
And every bomb has a silver lining, as such a show of force established atomic weaponry as a way to keep any sane leader from starting a major conflict.
And every bomb has a silver lining, as such a show of force established atomic weaponry as a way to keep any sane leader from starting a major conflict.
to win? no. We didn't drop the two nuclear devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki just for the hell of it. They were seen as weapons of war, and we used them to make the Japanese Empire surrender so we wouldn't have to invade them. The death toll of both nukes totaled to about 500,000 if you account both the blast and the resulting radiation. Most of these were Japanese civilians, with a handful of Japanese soldiers as well as a few American POW's. Had we launched a full scale invasion of Japan, the war would have gone on for at least another year. The death toll for the Americans would easily have doubled from 400,000 to 800,000. The amount of Japanese that died would also be astronomical, as the Japanese were taught to fight to the death, and they've done that with their colonies, not this is their homeland. the Death toll for both sides would be much higher for both sides. I'm not saying we should use nukes more often, just that, given the alternative, it wasn't a completely stupid idea.
It (probably) saved more lives, both japanese and american than it ended due to not needing a land invasion in which most japanese would have fought to their deaths, resulting in large losses on both sides
Althought not long after the surrender, there was a massive tsunami which, if the war was still ongoing would likely have wiped out the american fleet meaning a land invasion would be impossible, meaning the war would have went on indefinatly
Althought not long after the surrender, there was a massive tsunami which, if the war was still ongoing would likely have wiped out the american fleet meaning a land invasion would be impossible, meaning the war would have went on indefinatly
The victory in WW2 is still celebreated in Russia.
The Japanese spirit has no equals nowadays. I think that a land invasion of Hokaido, Shikoku and Kyoshu would have been devastating. The fighting would go on for months and the casualties on both sides would be high. As high as the cost of the two Atomic bombs?
You can only speculate.
The Japanese spirit has no equals nowadays. I think that a land invasion of Hokaido, Shikoku and Kyoshu would have been devastating. The fighting would go on for months and the casualties on both sides would be high. As high as the cost of the two Atomic bombs?
You can only speculate.
How about no... America had the edge in production, troop numbers, and quality of what we went to battle with. Japan had been beaten for a while, but as a culture, they cannot accept defeat, and were preparing to fight to the last man, and were teaching civilians to charge with spears and crude explosive devices. To combat this, America was contemplating making MacArthur a 6-Star General, to lead over several other 5-Star generals in an all out invasion from several locations. It would have been long, it would have been bloody, and the world would be radically different.The Virgo said:
In preparation for an invasion of Japan, the US created half a million Purple Heart medals, the one awarded to soldiers injured in the line of duty. They've never had to make any more, they've still got a quarter of them left after all this time.
They made that many because they'd need that many.
The use of atomic weaponry was justified...in any case, Allied forces had previously been able to get similar results with lots and lots of conventional weapons, which seems to be accepted as necessary, it's only because they used newer atomic bombs that the destrution of these cities is questioned.
EDIT: Argh, ninja'd.
They made that many because they'd need that many.
The use of atomic weaponry was justified...in any case, Allied forces had previously been able to get similar results with lots and lots of conventional weapons, which seems to be accepted as necessary, it's only because they used newer atomic bombs that the destrution of these cities is questioned.
EDIT: Argh, ninja'd.
They weren't needed to win, but they shortened the war and saved lives (hard as that is to see).
oh it has?Hardcore_gamer said:[http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/1289119thisthreadagains.jpg/]
Why does this topic keep popping up over and over again? Hasn't it been discussed to death a million times already?
I have started to wonder if people just keep posting threads like these because its edgy thing to do now or something.
fuck...
It's all a matter of perspective. To "win" the war a nuclear strike was not required. To ensure that we NEVER have to fight Japan again; it was a necessity. Just like the killing of British officers was a necessity during the American Revolution. We could have won the war without doing so (in hindsight), but doing so ensured total victory.cyrogeist said:
The object of war is not to win, it's to beat the other side so badly that they won't want to fight you again ever.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,387
- 4,183
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
no but the nukes probably saved japan
if we didnt nuke them then probably we would end up invading and there would be huge loss of life and then russia would invade also, then one of 2 things would happen
the japanese wouldnt surrender and would be almost wiped out or they would surrender and half of japan would be russian territory like germany was
if we didnt nuke them then probably we would end up invading and there would be huge loss of life and then russia would invade also, then one of 2 things would happen
the japanese wouldnt surrender and would be almost wiped out or they would surrender and half of japan would be russian territory like germany was
They prevented the possibility a full scale invasion of mainland japan which would have been incredibly bloody and lasted many years. They may have not been needed to win but they were a far more rational choice in terms of a long term vision. Without them the world would not be the same place it is today and the casualties from the war could have been vastly higher.
Neither is a particularly nice choice but the point was to end the war and it did.
Neither is a particularly nice choice but the point was to end the war and it did.
I would have given it a year, 2 tops. At that point, food production would have become so low and the population so decimated that Japan likely would have been unable to continue the fight. we had developed napalm by this point, and had all but destroyed several cities in both theaters with it, and I imagine that we would have started to try and burn up the food supply after the cities were left a smoking ruin.mental_looney said: