The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Society & Lifestyles:
History

Why Did America Use Nuclear Weapons To End World War 2?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 · >>
MainerMikeBrown On April 19, 2021




Hiram, Maine
#1New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 20:27:25
Some say the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Japan because their would've been just as many deaths if we hadn't, as the Japanese military would've never surrendered until all was lost for them anyway.

However, others say we used nukes to scare the Soviets.

Why do you think we dropped nukes on Japan? My opinion is that it was a little bit of both.
LuckyCharms On July 31, 2021
Magically Delicious





,
#2New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 20:28:54
Pardon the phraseology - killing two birds with one stone.
raditz On March 24, 2024
Blah





Houston, Texas
#3New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 20:39:49
I think the sole reason was so you could make this thread.
treebee On April 13, 2015
Government Hooker

Moderator




London, United Kingdom
#4New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 20:45:03
I thought it was to show that they were mad enough to do it
galastaray On June 08, 2016
honey bucket


Deleted



Honey Bucket, Reunion
#5New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 21:21:27
Probably due to the same reason Bin Laden flew two planes into the Twin Towers.
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#6New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 22:50:30
To show the world what they were capable of and send out a massive "DOnt f*** with me" message.

It served its purpose, no-one has been stupid enough to start a proper war with the yanks since. And not many nuclear missiles get fired now.
jthompson3125 On December 13, 2012




Westfield, Massachusetts
#7New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 22:51:37
When Japan didn't surrender after the first atomic bomb Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, the United States government issued a warning we would drop another.

Japan again refused to surrender so the U.S. dropped Fat Man over Nagasaki. When this happened the U.S. issued another threat, claiming that we had stockpiles of these bombs in warehouses waiting to be flown over.

Afraid of losing the entire population without even fighting, Japan surrendered in fear of being attacked with another atomic bomb.

In reality, the U.S. was unable to produce any more atomic bombs at the time, and had barely even finished the race to obtain, and perfect nuclear weapons before they had to use them it in Japan.

The United States used Nuclear Weapons to force Japan's surrender, and show the rest of the militarized world that we had the capability and probability to build more atomic weapons. So in your argument, a little bit of both is correct, but the U.S. did not have any more stock piled, and wouldn't for some time.
Willi On August 21, 2018




northinmind,
#8New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 22:58:42
@galasTAray Said

Probably due to the same reason Bin Laden flew two planes into the Twin Towers.



both went after civilians because the military was to strong.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#9New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 23:08:46
To end the war. Japan's philosophy was similar to most Asian countries regarding war, and that is to fight without surrender.

Civilian casualties were an accepted part of war back then.
Willi On August 21, 2018




northinmind,
#10New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 23:32:54
@Leon Said

Civilian casualties were an accepted part of war back then.



blackmail was too.
surrender or we kill the women and children.
Jennifer1984 On July 20, 2022
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#11New Post! May 26, 2012 @ 23:54:28
@Leon Said

To end the war. Japan's philosophy was similar to most Asian countries regarding war, and that is to fight without surrender.

Civilian casualties were an accepted part of war back then.



It was a tactic which may have had some political / military legitimacy at that time..... Show the world you have this weapon, demonstrate that you are not afraid to use it, and then promise to stop using it if the enemy sues for peace.

Carrot and stick.

There is little doubt that whatever country developed nuclear weapons first (and Nazi Germany was very close) they would use it. In that regard it isn't surprising that the US did so.

Of course, that was the short term view of the day. What followed next was inevitable. The Soviets HAD to have this weapon. They knew the Germans were close to producing a nuclear weapon and as they advanced westwards they took as many German scientists as they could. America did the same thing, only they concentrated on taking rocketry and heavy lifting specialists, which came in very handy when it came to winning "The Space Race"... but that's a different subject. Let's stay on topic, here.

The arms race following the surrender of Japan in the face of nuclear attack sent out a message to other countries that they too must have these weapons. Britain, France and China soon acquired them. Others have done so since.

The philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD. No more appropriate acronym has ever existed) is alleged to have prevented superpower conflict between the West and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. That is a debatable issue in my opinion. However, it is a fact that no tactical nuclear weapon has been used since 1945 (although lesser grade weapons are believed to have been used, such as depleted uranium shells deployed by US forces attacking Fallujah, Iraq, which are believed to have caused horrible birth defects since. See this link:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/30/faulluja-birth-defects-iraq )



Now we live in a world where the west lives in fear that countries such as Iran will soon possess a nuclear capabilty which they may be prepared to use against America, Israel or any other nations, regardless of the threat of retaliation.

The prospect of nuclear proliferation should be worrisome to us all. These weapons in the hands of extremist regimes would be a serious threat to security, but the counter argument that, if one country has them and is prepared to use them, then should not others also possess them as a deterrent..?

Whether or not these countries would truly keep nuclear weapons as a deterrent only, I do not know. To be honest, I doubt it. It's reasonable to say we should not trust them. On the other hand, how trustworthy are we...? In their eyes, it is we who are the present wielders of weapons of mass destruction and if the allegations about Fallujah are true (and bearing in mind the USA's recent record, who can trust America to tell the truth..?) then the scope for escalation is apparent.

Nuclear weapons cannot be "uninvented" and it is probable that the current nuclear powers will never give them up (although I think they should).

If proliferation is to be avoided, those who have these weapons must act in a manner that makes it clear to the world that no threat is presented to anybody else.... that other countries do not need to have such weapons themselves. This must be backed up by an efficient, effective means of checks and controls by the UN. This is the only way in which proliferation.... and the inevitable, eventual consequences of loss of control over these weapons.... can be contained.

Nuclear weapons must be contained, and that process of containment starts with those countries that already have them.
townie_guy On May 07, 2013

Deleted



, United Kingdom
#12New Post! May 27, 2012 @ 02:14:40
Nuclear weapons are more a deterrent than anything. However to surrender them will leave u open to attack. The yanks did try and counter them with the star wars defence programme, what a f***ing joke that was.
bob_the_fisherman On January 30, 2023
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#13New Post! May 27, 2012 @ 02:41:43
From memory, Paul Nitze in Dangerous Capabilities spoke of this (he was a US Foreign Policy adviser or some such during WWII and the Cold War days). He seemed to be of the opinion that the reason was two fold.

First, from a western perspective, the Japanese were not rational. The fact that their people would die rather than surrender, and even commit suicide quite happily, meant that a "rational" approach to ending the war was not likely to prove effective - and any reasonable evaluation of the facts would tend to confirm this.

Second, the US was worried about increasing nationalism in the Third World and a growing indigenous Communist base throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America, as well as Europe - Greece, Spain, Italy etc., were flirting with Communism (hence the creation of the Marshall Plan), and the French Underground had been largely an indigenous Communist movement.

Communists had, even at that time, a very bad habit of killing anyone that spoke against them, and of course, Stalin was happy to kill anyone he disliked. Also the Ruskies were busily going about their own nuclear program, which the Americans feared was an offensive move - from the US perspective, Stalin appeared intent on creating a global proletarian movement.

America wanted to make damned sure that Stalin knew what the response to any offensive move would be - swift cataclysmic destruction. They also wanted the Japanese to know that annihilation was the response to non-surrender.

On dropping the second A-bomb - I am not sure, but I do not think it was a given that Japan would not surrender after the first one. The second was, from memory, more like a statement of intent on the part of the US (but could be wrong though, I read this stuff twenty years ago).

So, yes, dropping the nukes was partially aimed at Russia - especially the second one.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#14New Post! May 27, 2012 @ 02:45:08
@bob_the_fisherman Said

From memory, Paul Nitze in Dangerous Capabilities spoke of this (he was a US Foreign Policy adviser or some such during WWII and the Cold War days). He seemed to be of the opinion that the reason was two fold.

First, from a western perspective, the Japanese were not rational. The fact that their people would die rather than surrender, and even commit suicide quite happily, meant that a "rational" approach to ending the war was not likely to prove effective - and any reasonable evaluation of the facts would tend to confirm this.

Second, the US was worried about increasing nationalism in the Third World and a growing indigenous Communist base throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America, as well as Europe - Greece, Spain, Italy etc., were flirting with Communism (hence the creation of the Marshall Plan), and the French Underground had been largely an indigenous Communist movement.

Communists had, even at that time, a very bad habit of killing anyone that spoke against them, and of course, Stalin was happy to kill anyone he disliked. Also the Ruskies were busily going about their own nuclear program, which the Americans feared was an offensive move - from the US perspective, Stalin appeared intent on creating a global proletarian movement.

America wanted to make damned sure that Stalin knew what the response to any offensive move would be - swift cataclysmic destruction. They also wanted the Japanese to know that annihilation was the response to non-surrender.

On dropping the second A-bomb - I am not sure, but I do not think it was a given that Japan would not surrender after the first one. The second was, from memory, more like a statement of intent on the part of the US (but could be wrong though, I read this stuff twenty years ago).

So, yes, dropping the nukes was partially aimed at Russia - especially the second one.


I've heard the tapes. The intent, and this was stated to the Japanese at the time as well, was that they would keep dropping one, one by one, seperated by a few days in between, like they did with the first two, until Japan finally surrendered. However many it took.
Leon On December 21, 2023




San Diego, California
#15New Post! May 27, 2012 @ 02:49:14
Also it is interesting to note that, because of the introduction of nuclear weapons to end it, WWII was the last war in which all means of destruction available to mankind were used.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Wed Mar 23, 2011 @ 10:30
191 14074
New posts   Politics
Sun Dec 05, 2010 @ 04:35
61 4387
New posts   Politics
Fri Mar 26, 2010 @ 21:14
41 3209
New posts   Politics
Sat Jul 05, 2008 @ 01:15
33 2143
New posts   Animation
Fri Aug 15, 2008 @ 01:55
15 1974