This is a ridiculous question to argue. White-Americans should be thankful. A whole generation of fathers would have been wiped out if the Allies didn't have the courage to drop the bomb. An invasion of Japan would have been hellish and costly: look at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

As people have said, the death toll for both Americans and Japanese if the bombs weren't dropped would be much higher. In the early days of the Pacific War, it was hell for the Americans fighting the Japanese on small islands (Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima). The Japanese at that point were using suicide pilots, and fighting to the death. It would have been brutal to conquer mainland Japan. And it wasn't just that. Truman wanted the bombs dropped so the Soviets wouldn't get as much control over Asia.

On the other hand, almost all of Japan, except the military, wanted to keep fighting, and this was before the bombs. The firebombing on Tokyo was WORSE than Little Boy. So if the US did land on Japan, most of the population would already be upset at the Japanese government. And the American soldiers.


If the bombs weren't dropped, I'd see a few endings:

1. The US, Russia, and Britain would push through the last remaining Japanese outposts, including Korea. Then they would invade Japan.
2. The Allies don't invade Japan, got continue bombings. The population would eventually rebel due to blockades (the whole reason Japan went imperialistic was because they didn't have many supplies at home). The new government would surrender.

Oh and America committed similar but less cruel war crimes on Japanese.

Are you asking from a moral sense, or in terms of what is best for the country?

war + nukes = Disaster. I rest my case

War = Disaster*

good point

I personally believe that the bomb dropped on Nagasaki was unnecessary. This is due to following Hiroshima, Japan wanted to have a conditional surrender in which the Emperor was maintained. This happened anyway, and as such I believe Nagasaki was unnecessary.

Please note: My views on the bombs are somewhat biased due to my Grandfather dying from radiation poisoning after going to Nagasaki as a responder.

Nukes=War/Peace

Why? Mutually Assured Destruction

^ I find it unsettling that MAD works so well.

Its only been about 60 years MAD has been around...in terms of historical epochs and eras its a small sample size. Its not a guaranteed law of course...so it really shouldn't be adopted as an actually useful foreign policy plan.

MAD likely won't hold. We've seen two nuclear powers go to war already.

It ended the war earlier and saved American lives. It shouldn't have come down to dropping the bomb in the first place but it happened.

It also arguably saved Japanese lives if it shortened the war (although again, this is very, very arguable since Japan didn't "unconditionally surrender" in the end anyhow and this requirement of "unconditional surrender" likely kept Japan fighting for so long despite having obviously lost).

just get rid of nukes and vote world peace.

end of

isnt the atom bombing the war crime?

Its like gases attack at WW1 but only one side can use it

Japanese did really bad things during WW2, but its not the case doing similar shit that you even dont know effects

https://youtu.be/g_n7vEG3bD0

look here a video about American nukes on Japan

look here a video about American nukes on Japan

That's exactly what I thought of Moldova. Like Romania but nuked to stone age.

https://youtu.be/CJgZZUIq6lw

this is a video with moldavian army

Yknow America bombed Afghanistan to the Stone Age. They were thankful for the tech upgrade.