Question

can someone help me add on or check my answer?
Should the atomic bomb have been used on Japan? Why or why not?
The atomic bomb shouldn't have been used on Japan because it caused so much damage. It destroyed two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 129,000 Japanese people were killed or badly injured from the bombings. Although the bombing was required to get Japan to surrender and put an end to the war, the U.S could've used a different strategy.

Answer 1

Well, I personally think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the safest and best strategy for both sides. The only other strategy the US could've done was a full scale invasion of the Japanese homeland, which would not be good for either sides. Both sides would take many casualties and would possibly end in a bloody stalemate on both sides. At the time, Japan was about as strong as the US, and since the Japanese civilians were told to fight, the troops would probably have to massacre innocent civilians to prevent dying themselves and cause a Vietnam type situation where you can't trust any of the locals. The US dropped one atomic bomb hoping that the Japanese would surrender, but they didn't, leading the US to drop another, which basically told the Japanese "hey, we can nuke you as many times as it takes until you surrender", leading to the Japanese surrender. Yes, nuking the two cities and killing many innocent civilians was a horrible deed, that is war, and you sometimes have to make calls that can either kill many of your own, or many of the enemies own.