This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/world/asia/did-us-have-to-drop-atomic-bombs-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Did U.S. Have to Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did U.S. Have to Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
(about 17 hours later)
Did the United States have to drop the bomb?Did the United States have to drop the bomb?
President Harry S. Truman defended his decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the only way to avoid a full-scale invasion of Japan. That, arguably, would have cost more lives, American and Japanese, than the approximately 200,000 who died in the two atomic attacks.President Harry S. Truman defended his decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the only way to avoid a full-scale invasion of Japan. That, arguably, would have cost more lives, American and Japanese, than the approximately 200,000 who died in the two atomic attacks.
Critics have contended that the Japanese were sending signals that they were prepared to surrender, but that these were either missed or ignored, and that the United States wanted to demonstrate to the world — and particularly to the Soviet Union — the awesome power it had at its disposal.Critics have contended that the Japanese were sending signals that they were prepared to surrender, but that these were either missed or ignored, and that the United States wanted to demonstrate to the world — and particularly to the Soviet Union — the awesome power it had at its disposal.
The New York Times would like to know how our readers view the decision 70 years after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Submit your arguments, and we will publish some of them before the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing on Sunday.The New York Times would like to know how our readers view the decision 70 years after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Submit your arguments, and we will publish some of them before the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing on Sunday.
The responses so far have included justifications, condemnations, indictments and explanations. And though the 70 years since the bombing have helped provide perspective — and more historical knowledge about what was happening at that time in the war — they have not yielded much consensus.
Lawrence Moss, a reader from New York, says the bombing of Japan “was an act of terrorism,” and he blamed the American president: “Harry Truman was a war criminal.” But Kevin Joseph of Binghamton, N.Y., and Frank Doolittle, from Paradise Valley, Ariz., say, “Truman did the right thing.”
Mr. Joseph argues that any signals the Japanese sent in 1945 were aimed at negotiations, not a full surrender, “and that would have been disastrous.” Mr. Doolittle credits Truman’s decisiveness, saying, “it was politically correct and saved American lives and ended the war.”
Many who responded say that it was a necessary if morally unpalatable choice in order to avoid an amphibious invasion of Japan that might have killed many more people.
“What a horrid situation it was to justify the bombs’ use in human suffering, choosing the lesser of two horrible options,” writes Sam Novartes from Matamoras, Penn.
Some of the readers who submitted such arguments say they are the children of American servicemen who would have participated in an invasion.
“It’s personal for me,” says Linda Blonsley of Arroyo Grande, Calif. She writes that her father might have been in the first wave. “The projected casualties were over 30 percent. In all likelihood, I would not have been born.”
Elaine Ledwon’s father also fought in the South Pacific. “He was on a boat to invade Japan when news of the bomb was conveyed to his troop,” she writes from Ann Arbor, Mich. “He was profoundly grateful: he did not think he would survive the invasion of Japan, based on the ferocity of fighting he had experienced.” She adds: “It is unfair to judge the dropping of the bomb from a 2015 perspective.”
“As horrific as the bomb was, I do think the decision is defendable since either way, the human and economic toll of the alternatives would have been catastrophic as well,” writes Matt Roden of Pelham, N.Y. He said his grandfather, who would have been part of an invasion of Japan, survived because of the decision to drop the bombs.
“The surrender obviated the need for the invasion,” he contends, “and as a result, my mother had a father and I had a grandfather.”
The Times encourages readers to continue to submit their views, and check back for updates to the debate.