Question

Should the united states have dropped atomic bombs on japan? why or why not?

Answer 1

The decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan by the U.S. remains controversial, with arguments for quickening the end of World War II and saving lives, balanced against the moral implications of such immense destruction and whether Japan was already nearing surrender.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question of whether the United States should have dropped atomic bombs on Japan is a deeply complex and morally nuanced one. Supporters argue that using the atomic bomb saved countless American and Allied lives by potentially avoiding a prolonged, bloody invasion of Japan. Those in favor also point to the belief that the Japanese military's resistance would not subside without a demonstration of overwhelming force. Critics, however, question the morality of using such a destructive weapon and suggest that Japan was close to surrender due to the naval blockade and conventional bombing campaigns. President Truman's decision was influenced by the desire to end the war swiftly, the huge casualties anticipated from an invasion, and possibly to assert geopolitical dominance post-World War II. Truman may also not have fully comprehended the bomb's destructive power. Moreover, the use against Japan instead of Germany, had the latter not already surrendered, includes the suggestion that racial biases may have played a role.

Answer 2

Sadly, yes

Step-by-step explanation:

According to cautious estimates from the Allies, an assault of the home islands would result in the deaths of 2 million combatants and noncombatants. 2,000,000. Really, it's difficult to put that amount into context. Eight times as many people died as were believed to have died in the combined Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. each strikes eight times.

Was it wrong to do what you did? Yes. Do you wish the nuclear weapon had never been created? Occasionally. In this case, though, it saved more than 1.75 million lives.

Thank you,

Eddie