Table of Contents
Was the US immoral to use the atomic bomb to end the war against the Japanese?
The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was justified at the time as being moral – in order to bring about a more rapid victory and prevent the deaths of more Americans. However, it was clearly not moral to use this weapon knowing that it would kill civilians and destroy the urban milieu.
Which statement is an argument against using the atomic bomb?
Others have argued against the use of the bombs, with evidence such as: it was not needed, it was inhumane and it led to the modern atomic age and threat of nuclear war. Still others argue that perhaps the first bomb used against Hiroshima was justified but that the second used against Nagasaki was not.
Did dropping the atomic bombs on Japan really save lives?
By dropping the atomic bombs instead, the United States signalled to the world that it considered nuclear weapons to be legitimate weapons of war. Those bombings precipitated the nuclear arms race and they are the source of all nuclear proliferation. “Yes. It saved millions of lives in Japan and Asia” – Richard Frank
Would Japan have surrendered before November 1 without the atomic bombs?
Further, by posing counterfactual hypotheses, I argue that Soviet entry into the war against Japan alone, without the atomic bombs, might have led to Japan’s surrender before November 1, but that the atomic bombs alone, without Soviet entry into the war, would not have accomplished this.
Why didn’t the US use the atomic bomb on Japan?
The omission was deliberate: The United States feared that the Japanese, being forewarned, would shoot down the planes carrying the bombs.
What were the alternatives to using the atomic bomb?
The only alternative to the bomb was an invasion of Japan. The decision to use nuclear weapons is usually presented as either/or: either drop the bomb or land on the beaches. But beyond simply continuing the conventional bombing and naval blockade of Japan, there were two other options recognized at the time.