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

[*NatiMarie*]

I agree in that the second bomb on Nagasaki was unnecessary (I conceed to that much while debating with comradered), but as kyro said the second one ensured surrender. Not only that it brought a sense of security during the time of confusion to America, especially while our relationship with Russia was wavering. After all, Truman would've been bashed by many Americans if it was known that we had WMD and did not use it to secure surrender of the country that attacked Pearl.

While I agree that it was unnecessary, I will maintain that the bombs were justified.



Nagasaki was never the intended target. At first, the target was to be Kokura, now part of Kitakyushu, however, heavy cloud diverted the target to nearby Nagasaki. The damage to Nagasaki was wasn't as intense as in Hiroshima because of the city's topography.

Truman was under time pressure to keep Stalin's forces out.

If the war was prolonged there would have been more casualties.


Understanding the military culture of Japan during that era, surrender would be considered disgrace. It's was hard to know whether or not the Emperor's word of surrender would be carried out by the military.

No such weapon of mass destruction has ever been created. Its power could not have been conceived by those who do not know the weapon for what it is, as was the case of most Americans.

Sorry...btw that I didn't respond earlier...I have been busy this week and kind of drowsy, but I think I'm okay now .

Anywhoo...the Americans could have tested it to see the damage...but they refused to.

Sadly...the bombing on Japan still caused tension between the Soviet Union and the US, considering the fact that the Cold War started after WWII.