bombings on japan, were the really needed Options

[Mr. Psychotic]

do u guys think the 2 bombs dropped on japan during WW2 were really needed?
i say no because they just killed innoc3nt people in those 2 citys and it left a perment mental damage on my grandma (im japanese)
so what do u guys think

[*mipadi*]

There was a coup of some military officers that was stopped without much difficulty. It happened even with the bombing of Nagasaki, so I don't see how you can say that it would definitely have been successful without the bombing of Nagasaki. The fact is, Hirohito was likely going to surrender after Hiroshima, and it was likely that most of his government would go along with his plan.

[sadolakced acid]

There was a coup of some military officers that was stopped without much difficulty. It happened even with the bombing of Nagasaki, so I don't see how you can say that it would definitely have been successful without the bombing of Nagasaki. The fact is, Hirohito was likely going to surrender after Hiroshima, and it was likely that most of his government would go along with his plan.

hiroshima put japan off balance. they were ready to surrender. nagasaki tipped them to a for certain.

that military coup would have been much larger had nagasaki not been bombed. The military would have said "they only have one bomb- they can't hit us again"

nagasaki might have merely infuriated them to fight more, to fight bitterly, to have the entire nation fight, from children of 8 years old to grandmothers of 80, all with bamboo stakes.

is that the fight that you'd want, instead of bombing a city?

[*mipadi*]

hiroshima put japan off balance.  they were ready to surrender.  nagasaki tipped them to a for certain.

that military coup would have been much larger had nagasaki not been bombed.  The military would have said "they only have one bomb- they can't hit us again"

nagasaki might have merely infuriated them to fight more, to fight bitterly, to have the entire nation fight, from children of 8 years old to grandmothers of 80, all with bamboo stakes.

is that the fight that you'd want, instead of bombing a city?

I'm not sure what evidence you offer for justification of your statements. I'm basing mine on historical facts; yours seems to be based entirely on unfounded hypotheticals.

[sadolakced acid]

I'm not sure what evidence you offer for justification of your statements. I'm basing mine on historical facts; yours seems to be based entirely on unfounded hypotheticals.

these are historical facts:

- the military coup took place even after the second bombing.

- the US army's alternate to the bombings was to gas the entire island with nerve gas, then do a land invasion

- the US did not want to have to invade the japanese home islands. Because, the japanese civilians were told stories about the US GIs. bamboo stakes at the shore. it happened.

- nagasaki was a military target the city was of miltary importance.

[*mipadi*]

these are historical facts:

-  the military coup took place even after the second bombing. 

-  the US army's alternate to the bombings was to gas the entire island with nerve gas, then do a land invasion

-  the US did not want to have to invade the japanese home islands.  Because, the japanese civilians were told stories about the US GIs.  bamboo stakes at the shore.  it happened.

- nagasaki was a military target the city was of miltary importance.

So from that, you draw the conclusion that the bombing was a necessity? You don't seem to have a basis for the connections you make.

1. The military coup took place even after the second bombing.
Yes, and it may have taken place even after the first, no matter what. There were some disgruntled generals who did not want a surrender, but they would have been disgruntled no matter what. You have made no basis for your claim that more generals would have joined the coup without the second bombing.

2. The US army's alternate to the bombings was to gas the entire island with nerve gas, then do a land invasion.
A red herring. One could easily argue that no type of attack was justifiable.

3. The US did not want to have to invade the japanese home islands because, the Japanese civilians were told stories about the US GIs. bamboo stakes at the shore. It happened.
Again, what's the connection to the bombing? After the first, it was likely that an invasion was not necessary, since the Japanese were close to surrender. At this time of the war, the Japanese were on the run; they were badly beaten, and had little capacity to fight. Hirohito knew this, hence his plan to surrender; some generals didn't want that to happen, but that hardly represents a coup by the government as a whole.

4. Nagasaki was a military target the city was of miltary importance.
Another red herring. There was no need to destory every target of military importance, especially given the imminent end of the war.

Let's look at a few facts that were left out of the above:

1. The Japanese army was routed, in low morale, and in retreat--they were in no condition to fight. Some studies suggest the US estimate of casualties in a land invasion were exagerrated; at any rate, the Emperor had no plan to fight back--he wanted to surrender.

2. The second bomb was of a different type than the first; the US wished to test the effects of that type versus the first type.

3. The second bomb could've been dropped on an uninhabited island, if all the US wished to do was prove that we had multiple nuclear weapons.