Were the WWII bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good thing overall for the wo

1. 81

   badeggposted 12 years ago

   Were the WWII bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good thing overall for the world in general?
   
   The cataclysmic bombings of these two Japanese cities was miniscule compared to the power of todays nuclear weapons. Did the demonstration of nuclear power in 1945 eventually save lives in the future?

   replyreport
2. 61

   Marturionposted 12 years ago

   It's hard to determine what the outcome might have been had they not dropped the bombs.  From what we know, the outlook for a quick end was bleak, at best, and the projected loss of life was simply astronomical.  On the other hand, we have to look at the atmosphere of worldwide terror that simple act created.  The build-up of nuclear arms was a direct result of the sense of panic created by the overwhelming power unleashed by those bombs, which was so much more than  what anyone expected.  In the end, though, I believe that the bombings were the fastest, and most definitive way to end the war, and establish a means for a comfortable peace in the end.

   replyreport
3. 59

   Max Purcellposted 12 years ago

   I can't do the projection in my head: Did the bombs' deterrence quality prevent more future loss of life than they spent?  It would be anyone's guess.  It's a little easier to see how they might have influenced the outcome and dispatch of the war itself, but still it is a little less tenable to call that a statistical probability than a simple guess.  What we do know for sure is the bombs in question destroyed a lot of human lives when they were dropped, no question, and maybe the only good thing about WWII was rescuing those people out of the Nazi camps.  I guess it was the best we could do.  One could argue that we (America) emerged as a super power, but one wonders whether we might have done that anyway without the war and the accompanying realignment of global power structures, which was nothing if not total crap.  Oddly that wore off just in time for this new war of no fronts.  Hmm.

   replyreport
4. 0

   Old Empresarioposted 12 years ago

   Well, since the Japanese government had tried to surrender already in July of 1945, I would say dropping the bombs was a pointless thing to do. President Truman would not accept the Japanese surrender. He dropped the bombs in August 1945. After that, he accepted the surrender. This is part of the historical record and is supported by US government documents, correspondence, and even Truman's journal. Dropping the bombs started the Cold War.

   replyreport
5. 53

   perassannaposted 12 years ago

   i thought first its saved lots of lives, but when i watched a documentary film called "Zeitgeist" i changed my opinion. 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie'

   replyreport