Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Those used in WW2 were Atomic bombs (A-bombs) Hydrogen bombs (H-bombs) were developed later and are much more powerful, or can be at least.
The basic difference is that A-bombs get their energy from the process of Nuclear Fission, which H-bombs use a combination of Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion (of Hydrogen isotopes, hence the name).
What is often not realised is that you actually need an A-bomb to set off an H-bomb!
Those figures were provided by the people who did the dropping. Suspect at best. Nagasaki happened not because it was necessary, but to test a different kind of bomb. Bad reason.
While the two bombs dropped on Japan my have been the deadliest two bombs dropped during the war, they were NOT the deadliest bombing raids. If not for the Atomic bombs another type of bombing mission could easily have been ordered and killed just as many if not more people. So the fact that it was an atomic bomb or firebombs really makes little or no difference.
Why dont you ask that third generation if they would prefer to be "genetically damaged" or never have been born, which is what would have happened if their parents would have been killed in a firebombing raid?
"It is believed.." That's a horse shit statement. No one knows that. Quite a thing to build your support of nuking a country on (twice), don't you think? "It is believed..."
Well, "it is believed" that Japan would have surrendered anyway, without the bombs. Would have saved 140,000 lives. I believe it was the wrong decision.
Firstly, as mentioned several times, to save millions of lives.
Not just allied lives, but Japanese military and civilian lives too.
The japanese military had already embraced the concept of suicide attacks, both the well know Kamikaze aircraft, but also on land (Banzai charges by the last defenders of various islands) and at sea (human guided torpedoes and explosive motor boats).
Plans were well advanced to extend thst to the civilian population, and millions of simple bamboo spears were being made to equiop them for suicide charges against invading forces.
Additionally the western allies feared the Red Army would not be content to stop at Berlin. Demonstrating this awesome weapon was a clear signal to Russia not to push further west, and the second bomb was designed to show the first was not a one-off.
Also it is probable that having spend so much time and money on the project, the US and British scientists and their governments wanted to see some return for their efforts?
If not for problems at the (almost deserted) Japanese embassy, the eclaration of war would have been delivered to the US govrnment just as the attack was about to start, and so have been technically legal under international law.
The japanese underestimatd the will and character of the American people very badly, and the gamble failed.
So in summary no they shouldn't have, from a military and political point of view, and a bigger no from the POV of all the suffering and death caused.
United States
We did it twice already. Don't see the need to do it again.
I agree. We aren't even at war. Besides, twice made the point. Twice was enough. Next time don't bomb Pearl Harbor.
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 180 days ago by deleted user ReplyThe turnip truck?
Have you misread the question?
Yes, it saved lives.
The nuclear bombing of Japan forced Japan to surrender. Approximately 140,000 people were killed.
It is believed that if the US did not drop those bombs, and instead invaded Japan, that over 1,000,000 would have died (total of both sides).
I believe it was the right decision.
If they had been nuclear we would all be gone.
They were Atomic.
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 180 days ago by deleted user ReplyThey were called atomic when I was young.
You would know better than I would, you guys dropped them.
This comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 179 days ago by deleted user ReplySame thing, Aussie.
Thanks.
So my fear of thinking a Nuclear bomb would be more catastrophic than an Atomic bomb is wrong.
That makes me feel a lot better now.
An Atomic bomb is a type of nuclear weapon.
The other main type is a Hydrogen Bomb.
Those used in WW2 were Atomic bombs (A-bombs) Hydrogen bombs (H-bombs) were developed later and are much more powerful, or can be at least.
The basic difference is that A-bombs get their energy from the process of Nuclear Fission, which H-bombs use a combination of Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion (of Hydrogen isotopes, hence the name).
What is often not realised is that you actually need an A-bomb to set off an H-bomb!
H-bombs are also know as Thermonuclear weapons.
Those figures were provided by the people who did the dropping. Suspect at best. Nagasaki happened not because it was necessary, but to test a different kind of bomb. Bad reason.
While the two bombs dropped on Japan my have been the deadliest two bombs dropped during the war, they were NOT the deadliest bombing raids. If not for the Atomic bombs another type of bombing mission could easily have been ordered and killed just as many if not more people. So the fact that it was an atomic bomb or firebombs really makes little or no difference.
Tell that to the third generation of genetically damaged people from the environs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Why dont you ask that third generation if they would prefer to be "genetically damaged" or never have been born, which is what would have happened if their parents would have been killed in a firebombing raid?
But if they had never been born they wouldn't know the difference.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
And we decided to continue the blockade of Japan the navy estimated the Japs would have lost 14 million by starvation by November. Best to finish it.
"It is believed.." That's a horse shit statement. No one knows that. Quite a thing to build your support of nuking a country on (twice), don't you think? "It is believed..."
Well, "it is believed" that Japan would have surrendered anyway, without the bombs. Would have saved 140,000 lives. I believe it was the wrong decision.
This comment was deleted.
[-8 points] 179 days ago by deleted user ReplyIf Japan would have surrendered any way then why didn't they surrender after the first bomb?
Yes.
As for the reasons, there were several.
Firstly, as mentioned several times, to save millions of lives.
Not just allied lives, but Japanese military and civilian lives too.
The japanese military had already embraced the concept of suicide attacks, both the well know Kamikaze aircraft, but also on land (Banzai charges by the last defenders of various islands) and at sea (human guided torpedoes and explosive motor boats).
Plans were well advanced to extend thst to the civilian population, and millions of simple bamboo spears were being made to equiop them for suicide charges against invading forces.
Additionally the western allies feared the Red Army would not be content to stop at Berlin. Demonstrating this awesome weapon was a clear signal to Russia not to push further west, and the second bomb was designed to show the first was not a one-off.
Also it is probable that having spend so much time and money on the project, the US and British scientists and their governments wanted to see some return for their efforts?
A more appropriate question here is should Japan have bombed Pearl Harbor?
The war has been over for 64 years. Shouldn't these questions be over too?
Pearl Harbour was a strategic gamble.
If not for problems at the (almost deserted) Japanese embassy, the eclaration of war would have been delivered to the US govrnment just as the attack was about to start, and so have been technically legal under international law.
The japanese underestimatd the will and character of the American people very badly, and the gamble failed.
So in summary no they shouldn't have, from a military and political point of view, and a bigger no from the POV of all the suffering and death caused.