Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Operation Downfall was the allied plan to invade the Imperial Japanese mainland. Operation Olympic on November 1, 1945 and then Operation Coronet on March 1, 1946. Allied bombing raids would've continued into 1946 and by the end of hostilities there would've been massive civilian casualties. The Second World War would have ended with a much greater toll in human lives then it did. Droping two atomic bombs on two cities that would've been destroyed by conventional means expedited an end to that conflict. Waiting any longer would have resulted in implementing Operation Downfall. Waiting would have meant continued warfare and loss of lives.--Roopilots6 19:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey its either 200000 of them or 2 million marines? i chose them. not because i am american, but because 2 million lives is a whole lot!!! i may sound savage but i think it was nessecary. --Will N. 20:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Amen. It wasn't ethical or moral to drop the bombs, but it was most certainly the lesser of two evils. And honestly, it was war; you're supposed to use your advantageous weapons.--Hojimachong^talk 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

also all is fair in love and war. if we could end it then its our duty to end it. And if ending it saved 1,800,000 then go for it. --Will N. 20:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Estimated US casualties for Operation OLYMPIC & CORONET were 250,000 along with 1,000,000 Japanese civilian casualties. [1] --Ed Poor 16:18, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Sadly, I disagree with the earlier statements. Sure, it would have killed 2 million marines had we invaded them but uh... we didn't have to invade them. By 1945 Japan's navy and airforce were destroyed, they had no other means of attacking us. Remember everyone, a single death is a trajedy, a million deaths is a statistic. If we had to used a bomb we could have dropped one on the less-populated countrysides to show japan our power instead of killing hundreds of thousands of inocent lives. In love and war, inocent lives should not be involved. --User:FDRismyhero. 11:07 June 29

In historical retrospect, it was perhaps the lesser of three evils. There's no guarantee that the generals and the people would have surrendered, in the short and long runs - consider the belief of the people of Nazi Germany that they had only lost the first World War because their government betrayed them by surrendering. The atomic bombings made sure Japan went down, and stayed down. A land invasion in Japan may have cost more civilian lives as well as costing the Allies a great deal in manpower. The "third" evil I mentioned was that at one point, I believe they had planned on destroying as many as five major cities, but mercifully decided that only two were necessary. --JonathanDrain 10:33, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Mokugatsu! Ring a bell? The US was waiting on a reply to a demand of surrender when they dropped the bomb. (Mokugatsu was misinterpreted as "treat with contempt" when it was in fact "answer pending" (not a direct translation)).

The allies had agreed to a partitioning of Germany after the victory over Hitler. The United States, however, had conducted the Pacific War practically alone and we did not intend to share the fruits of victory with the Soviet Union after a protracted sea-land invasion of the home islands by both countries. Therefore, Harry Truman undertook to force Japan to capitulate before the USSR could mobilize by knocking out two Japanese cities with the nuclear bombs. The detonations also had a dampening effect on further Soviet aggression until 1949 when they obtained their own atomic devices. Teresita 20:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

i think that we were right to drop the first atomic bomb, but that we should have waited a little longer than a few days for them to surrender, mabey a week or a few weeks for them to decide, but after that dropped another one (although they weren't relatively that bad compared to all of the firebombings in japan)-Greenmeanie 00:24, 16 May 2008 (EDT)