Why is the use of the atomic bomb during WW2 still debated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas K
  • Start date Start date
T

Thomas K

Guest
During WW2, Japan’s atom bomb program was anywhere from a few weeks to a year behind the US’s program, based on which surviving records you subscribe. There can be little doubt that they intended to use their bomb. Their germ warfare weapons (Unit 741) were effective but dispersed poorly, even after a decade of using them in China.

Given the fanatical defense and mass suicides (rather than surrender) of even the civilian population on the Japanese island of Okinawa 2 months before Hiroshima, their weapons of mass destruction programs greater than the US, and the attempted military coup to continue the war after the Emperor finally decided to surrender (after 2 atom bombs), is there still an argument that a mass US amphibious landing against an armed populous would have been a more humane way to end the war?
nysenutz

Did you read the question? Japan was building their own atom bomb to use on the Americans. The Americans were just faster. Here’s just one of many links:

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm

What are your comments about the Japanese using Bubonic Plague bombs on the Chinese civilians in the 30’s and 40’s?

Jaxon is correct – those were military targets.

The Japanese peace feelers in June and July 45 were contingent on Japan’s maintaining their conquests in China, keeping their military, and not being occupied. It was not a surrender.

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

Back to my question, what is the most humane way to end the war?
Just hit the blue "Edit" button to modify your answer
 
Back
Top