On August 2nd, 1939, Einstein sent a letter to president Roosevelt, about the possible atomic bomb. If this letter had not been sent...would we have still used an atomic bomb? And if not on Japan in WWII then how would we have ended that war?
131070
The second wworld war would have ended without the use of atomic bomb. but the war offered an opportunity for the U.S to test the bomb which it has produced. The use of that bomb made the Japanese to surrender unilaterally
330790
Faced with the prospect of a direct assault on the Japanese mainland that would have cost millions of lives, many American, president Truman chose the “nuclear option”. The humanitarian consideration of destroying civilian populations to neutralize military targets is gut wrenching for the leader of a moral society. From the American perspective, especially those that would have lead the assault, it was the correct decision.
65750
There are speculation to the fact. But that is all they are; speculations. There is no hard proof to support it. The closest would be the Zimmerman Telegram from 1917. It was sent to the Mexican government and, if the US entered the war, ask if Mexico would join Germany and pursuade Japan to attack the US. In return, Mexico would get back Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.
408689
Ok and you can find articles on how to build nuclear weapons on the internet do that mean you have one or even have the capacity to make one in your basement? So what l am sure he was trying from the 90's to build one but that don't mean he had one and we had to rush to war to stop him from using it.
16054
Well, winning World War II set the United States up to be a world power.  It also helped ushered in a great deal of long-overdue reforms in Europe, and today a European Federal Constitution is now a very real possibility.  Further still,  had Hitler succeeded, he would have undoubetly gone on to destroy the United States indescriminatently.  He would not have spared a single American, even those who resembled his ideal race, because they had grown up in a culture that was, in his eyes, dirty and corrupt (not to mention we were his sworn enemy).  This is one of the many instances in which money plays no role, so the 2.6 trillion figure you site is meaningless.  And even though the use of atomic weapons is still controversial, that alone does not aide your case 'was stopping _Hitler_ worth it.  I'm frankly shocked and appauled that someone could use their freedom of speech, something that wouldn't be enjoyed in a Hilter-ized America, in such a blatantly ridiculous manner.
42628
Plain and simple...we out produced them.  This is not only how we defeated Japan but also Germany.  We produced far greater numbers of carriers, battleships, guns, aircraft etc etc.  Japan did not have the resources to go toe to toe with us in all out warfare.  They believed that if the attack on Pearl Harbor was succesfull, that America would not retaliate by declaring total war on Japan.  In that sence, one could say that they defeated themselves by underestimating American will.  \n  Island hoping was a very costly technique that was used effectively against Japan as well.  It had a devastating toll on life on both sides.  Another thing Japan did not count on was the fact that after they destroyed most of our battle-ships in Pearl Harbor, we would replace our ships with more modern versions than the ones destroyed....not to mention none of our aircraft carriers were hit in the Pearl Harbor attack.  Logistics also had a large roll on the war in the Pacific.  We effectively blocked most of the supplies Japan needed to conduct warfare against America by sinking supply ships that were on their way to Japan.  Japan being an island nation did not have the material resources on the island to keep pace with American industry...neither did Germany.  I believe this to be the main reason Japan attacked China and Mongolia before the U.S., for material resources.  There is much more but I'm tired of typing....good luck.
421654
Nuke 'em till they glow. If we don't, they will. Sadly, because of the criticism of Iraq, I think Bush has lost his ability to fight. If we do not attack now, it will cost us a major American city and millions of lives.\n\nThink I'm wrong? Look at history. There is no doubt that Japan would have used a nuke on Pearl Harbor if they had the technology available. It would have destroyed our entire fleet and given Japan free reign in the Pacific (which was their intention with the attack). Now our enemies do have nukes, and when they launch a sneak attack it will be infinitely worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11.\n\nAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing.
240780
As a Former Marine, I think you should check your facts!When Pearl Harbor was attacked, we were watching what the Germans were doing to the rest of the world. We were caught off guard when the Japs hit us at Pearl. I Have many Japanese freinds that understand why we did  what we had to do. I think your book will not be read. Because there are still to many that have not forgotten! Pearl Harbor. Who were the ones that were left behind? "Falling from grace" Makes no sense.
657813
Our War strategy was called "ISLAND HOPING"...this meant we would attack and conquer one Island in the chain of Islands going towards Japan and then skip the next Island and then Conquer the next Island in the chain of Islands and so forth and so on.\nBut after conquering the Island of Okinawa, president Harry S. Truman gave the go ahead to drop first one ATOMIC BOMB, not "Nuclear" on the Japanese city of HIROSHIMA and ask the Japanese to surrender, but they refused to surrender.  So two weeks later we again dropped another ATOMIC BOMB on the city of NAGASAKI and Japan finally capitulated, thus ending World War Two.
407421
-ok, the US threatened the Japan about invading China, that lead Japan into a corner and the Japanese decided to wipe out Pearl Harbour.\n(to be continue)
650957
We entered WWII after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, not because Hitler declared war on America, it was common knowledge that Hitler wanted to take over the world. It wasn't 20 million people it was 11-12 million. if you really want to place the blame anywhere but the Nazis and Fascists then you should blame France and Britain and the other Allies that attend the Munich Conference. It was here that the policy of appeasement was applied towards Hitler. Appeasement if you don't know is the act of giving in to enemies in order to avoid war. Britain and France allowed hitler to take over the Rhineland and it was only after hitler's invasion of Poland that the rest of Europe declared war. Also the blame lies with the individals that lived in areas surrounding the concentration camps that swore after the war that they had no idea what was going on in their backyards (as if the smell of rotting and burning flesh isn't and obvious give away!!) and FDR's New Deal Programs helped to pull us out of the Great Depression as opposed to Hoover who didn't try to help the unemployed and starving people that were being thrown from their homes!
53389
Riot,\nToday we can debate this issue with the aspect of both hindsight and foresight. When Mr. Truman made his decision, he did so knowing only what the possible outcome could be. His view was to save American lives, and I believe he made the only choice he could. Consider, had that event not took place, and the US invaded mainland Japan, the suspected killed in action count was to exceed one million US soldiers. If your father, or grandfather were among those causalities, you would not be here to ask this question. My heart goes out for the Japanese that lost their lives in this event, but thankful that we as a species have not found it within ourselves to use this weapon again!
173762
Yes he was justified in using the atomic bomb, and here is why:\n\n1. A full-scale invasion to take over Japan would have taken a lot longer than a couple of days. It would have taken months, even years to accomplish that task.\n2. That fight to successfully take over Japan would have cost thousands, if not millions, of Japanese, American and Russian troops (Russia declared war on Japan shortly after Germany surrendered).\n3. Even if a full-scale assult would have resulted, the war already cost a lot of money. If we did invade, that would have cost the U.S. even more money than what it could afford.
231242
Einstien didn't create the nuclear bomb. He just gave E=mc square. Even if he would not be there, it would have been discovered few years later. America would have won, but maybe few years later. And yes, don't blame Einstien for nuclear bomb tragedy. It would be like blaming Newton if someone fall off a building, because he discovered the nature of Gravity !!
597933
no it was not necessary. yes, the war could have ended with out the A bomb. The reason for the A bomb was to make other nations aware of the power the U.S. had.
555296
The US has thought of itself and the world's peacekeeper or policeman since the end of World War II. Nuclear proliferation is a problem whether or not the US keeps its arms. From the end of World War II until the beginning of the Bush administration, the US actively sought to limit the spread of nuclear arms through peaceful means. Bush's willingness to use the military before diplomacy is tried is an aberration.
443554
This may not be a topic you are interested in, but I found this article.  President Discusses Unity Between the U.S. & Japan.\nJust an idea.\nhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020218-2.html