Argument on why we should have dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Now let us discuss the concept of "total war" ... the idea of winning the war is essential. It is absolute. If we fail we die. There are no substitutes.
Civilians at the beginning of war are always held in high esteem, except in "total war." When the "chips" are down and atrocities are encountered, the game and the rules change. War is not a static event. Both morally and strategically.
In a war, there are so many questionable things done... Where was the morality in the bombing of Coventry, or the bombing of Dresden, or the Bataan death march, or the Rape of Nanking, or the bombing of Pearl Harbor?"
Whilst it is sometimes stated that the three day delay between Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in order to give the Japanese time to surrender, the records show that this is not the case. In actual fact it was the second bomb was not delayed in order to give Japan time to surrender, but was waiting only for a sufficient amount of plutonium-239 for the atomic bomb.
If you have a weapon, and you are fighting for survival, you will tend to use it. Only later are you judged for the consequences of your actions.
At the time, a total war was underway, no 39th parallel, no line in the sand or air space to be denied us....some information was known, other information was filtered or unknown. Various groups were racing to influence decision makers to ensure that the bomb was used (eg. Groves), others were racing to prevent the bomb from being used (eg. Szilard, Einstein).
Some knew of the Japanese "peace feelers", others did not. Given the decisions and the forces pushing and pulling the situation at the time, the fact that a Russian invasion of Northern Japan was imminent, that Siapan and Okinawa did leave high casualty rates, the decision to use the bomb is understandable.