Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary? Merely posing the question provokes indignation, even rage. Witness the hysterical shouting down of the Smithsonian exhibit that simply dared discuss the question fifty years after the act. Today, another eleven years on, Americans still have trouble coming to terms with the truth about the bombs.
Here is a summary of arguments on both sides: Why the bomb was needed or justified: The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa.
Fire bombing had killedin Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender. With only two bombs ready and a third on the way by late August it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.
An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.
Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger. Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified: Japan was ready to call it quits anyway.
More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.
American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance. A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.
Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U. The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one. Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.
Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.The debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the ethical, legal, and military controversies surrounding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August at the close of World War II (–45).
A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people. Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.
The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.
One of the greatest controversies to come out of World War II was whether the atomic bomb was necessary to bring about its end. historians have engaged in an often vitriolic debate over the decision to use the atomic bombs.
Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan. Hear the stories of the Manhattan Project. Browse our collection.
Pros and Cons of Dropping the Atomic Bomb 8TH SOCIAL STUDIES DEBATE ON THE PROS AND CONS OF DROPPING THE ATOMIC BOMB ON JAPAN Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II.
Here is a summary of arguments on both sides. Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II.
Here is a summary of arguments on both sides: Why the bomb was needed or justified. In when World War I alost ended United States drop atomic bomb on the two cities of Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,–, people in Hiroshima and 60,–80, in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day.