I was thinking about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during World War ll and I didn't know if it was a good decision or not.
Was it?

Quote from GameRat101

I was thinking about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during World War ll and I didn't know if it was a good decision or not.
Was it?

well, this isn't something which can be defined by the simple definition of good or bad
when we talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we must take in consideration the time everything happened

it's world war 2: Germany was finally conquered by URSS and USA, but the Russians were the one to get first in Berlin. If you add this to all the territories URSS got with the pact Molotov-Von Ribbentrop plus the fact that URSS was about to invade Japan too to end the war, you can understand why in the end Truman went for the atomic

True, the war was already won, but from how it would have finished new factions could have been born. By that we talk especially about the power the URSS was getting in its hands
To put a stop to Stalin's ambitions, Truman thought of using Hiroshima as a way to announce to the whole world the true american power. Also, it served as a way to threaten URSS, since the Russian army was very weak agains strategic bombardments (being essentially a terrestrial army)

And so this is what's behind the bomb's usage (remember, though, that these sources may be not accurated)

Now, it's your choice to judge it good or bad (depends if we're talking about it morally or ethically)

Quote from DiPi

Now, it's your choice to judge it good or bad (depends if we're talking about it morally or ethically)

I'm talking about both ethically and morally.

Seems more like you should be debating the morals of war. The way I see it it's the law ofnthe jungle, kill or be killed. It was a necessary move to make to help end the war, and if Japan had the opportunity I'm sure Japan or hitler would have used an atomic bomb. Why not give an atomic bomb and jet to alqueada? You can say that innocents were killed and that should be avoided but there are no rules to war. You do what you must and sacrifice what you must to win. I'm not sure about you all but I love the lifestyle I'm privileged to have, and I would much rather not be working 18 hour shifts for no money in an overpopulated country or living I'm sand houses while wearing sheets to stay warm.

Quote from Arch-Angel

Seems more like you should be debating the morals of war. The way I see it it's the law ofnthe jungle, kill or be killed. It was a necessary move to make to help end the war, and if Japan had the opportunity I'm sure Japan or hitler would have used an atomic bomb. Why not give an atomic bomb and jet to alqueada? You can say that innocents were killed and that should be avoided but there are no rules to war. You do what you must and sacrifice what you must to win. I'm not sure about you all but I love the lifestyle I'm privileged to have, and I would much rather not be working 18 hour shifts for no money in an overpopulated country or living I'm sand houses while wearing sheets to stay warm.

Hitler was already working on an atomic bomb, but the US created it before Germany did.
Plus, the two bombings definitely helped stop the war, but people thought it would've been avoided. And if we didn't bomb Japan, then the war would go on for a longer time, so I personally thought it was the right thing to do.

No. It still hurts people today.

It is yes but due to animes i felt a bit conscious lol so i voted yes.

The atomic bomb was a technology race already if america hadn't done it first, the axis powers sure would have. Morals aside, the idea of the attack was straightforward. To permanently take Japs off the war which it did. Morals back, the fact that millions had died to do it didn't feel right.

Quote from J.Christian

It is yes but due to animes i felt a bit conscious lol so i voted yes.

Since when did this have to do with anime?

Quote from GameRat101

Since when did this have to do with anime?

I don't know i just use my
IMAGINATION
lol jk
i typo a bit there lol

Had to do a paper on this once. Invasion or nuke? nuke was the lesser evil

The Japanese were banking on an all out assault on the mainland Island. They were training CIVILIANS to fight to the death. To invade the mainland would have cost both sides considerable losses, more than the 200,000+ killed in the bombings of Nagasaki, and Hiroshima.

Operation downfall was the invasion plan of Japan made by the Allied forces, while Operation Ketsugo was the defensive plan made by the Japanese.The goal of operation Ketsugo was to inflict as many causalities as possible creating a cost too high for the Allies to fully conquer Japan thus allowing negotiations to occur.

Not only that, the Soviets were also planning to conquer japan, so the US was running out of time.
To have Japan fall to the soviets was a huge no-no and thus the bombs were dropped in order to end the war as soon as possible.

Also, we were bombing civilian targets way before we dropped the nukes. Our goal was to demoralize them. Best way to demoralize them? Kill the innocent. Operation meetinghouse, a firebombing raid, had a higher loss of life than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki treated separately

Stuff for you to google:
operation downfall
operation ketsugo
Soviet Japanese war of 1945
bombing of tokyo

I love mass murders... if you didn't bomb them, millions more people will die.

An invasion of japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides and dragged on for another five years. The first bomb was necessary to drive home a point, the second wasn't as needed, but japan wasn't moving fast enough with the response