Spencer asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 6 months ago

Could the US have won the war in the Pacific without dropping the atomic bomb?

38 Answers

Relevance
  • 6 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes, Spencer, but at the cost of many, many, many more lives. The Japanese refused to surrender. They believed their emperor was a god and their god told them it was shameful to surrender. They no longer had an air force, they no longer had a navy, and even after the first bomb, the refused to stop. Only the second bomb brought the emperor to his senses. Yes, the US and its allies could have marched into Tokyo without the bomb, but it would have taken longer, and many more lives would have been lost.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Tad Dubious
      Lv 7
      5 months agoReport

      Thanks! (Killmouseky talks big but gives no proof. My answer is based on what was told to be by a veteran of WW II in the Pacific.)

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    If the war dragged on past 1945 it would have had major diminishing returns for the USA. A lot more men would have been seriously injured or killed. Maybe up to a million. It would have put a serious dent into the positive effect the GI Bill had on US middle class in the 1950s. After WWII, the USA enjoyed a great period of prosperity since its factories and industries were not destroyed. This would not have been as significant if fighting dragged out a few more years with possibility of clashing with Russia over what was left of Japan. The USA would have been in a much weaker position going into the Korean War, maybe China would have been more aggressive. May have fractured NATO as Europe was not up for fighting in Asia as they wanted to rebuild.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Most people fail to bring one major factor into the end of the war equation, the USSR. The USSR was essentially an enemy state at the beginning of the war (before US involvement). With out writing a 12 page history paper, the US needed to show the USSR that we were not friends and we were able to repel further advances into former axis and numeral territories. Look at the soviet block in easter Europe and note the closest thing in the ease was North Korea. Using Nuclear weapons Showed the reds that we had something they didn't have and could scarcely comprehend. This may have prevented the Red Army from continuing the war and spreading it to new fronts closer to home.

  • Dj2541
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    I think that you need to rephrase your question it should read "could the US and her ALLIES"???

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 6 months ago

    Only with a lot more allied troops being killed.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Yes. President Harry Truman always said attacking Japan with atomic bombs saved many lives on both sides; military estimates for the invasion of mainland Japan were that it could take a year and result in 250,000 to 500,000 U.S. casualties.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Killmouseky
      Lv 7
      5 months agoReport

      All the casualty claims were bunk. As Adm. Leahy advised, all that needed to be done was to maintain the naval blockade for a couple more months.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Certainly not as quickly as it did. In all likelihood, an invasion of the 300+ Japanese home islands would have been required, and 500,000+ lives, both US and Japanese, would have been sacrificed. There are several things to remember:

    (1) The Japs attacked us without provocation at Pearl Harbor. They deserved what came. (2) The Japs were not ready to surrender. It took two bombs, not one, and they did not surrender until five days after the second bomb. (3) Regardless, the war came to a much speedier end that it otherwise would have. (4) If you think I am hardline on this, ask a Chinaman what he thinks of Japs.

    • Ambistoma
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      Attacking Pearl Harbor (a purely military target) and killing 3000 military members before declaring war, doesn't mean Japan deserved to have its cities burnt to the ground. And I say this as someone whose great-uncle died in the USS Oklahoma's engine room. Nanjing would be a stronger argument.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • blu
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    Yes but at a much costlier price (Okinawa demonstrated that).

    The US didn't spend $2B on the Manhattan Project to create something they wouldn't use. The world got a dose of "the bomb" devastation which permanently altered the dynamics of warfare and no WW3 after 70+ yrs.

    History only unfolds one way. It gives us facts f/ the results. The results f/ WW2 are more than satisfactory and speak for themself.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Mrsjvb
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    probably.. at a much higher cost of lives on both sides. and instead of the war ending in 1945, it wold have dragged on for many more years.

    • Killmouseky
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      Not a chance. Could have just maintained the naval blockade & ended the war by the end of '45 with no Allied losses at all.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Yes ,but under "Operation Downfall --the Invasion of Japan -- the projected casualty figures for the Allies and Japanese ran into the many millions .

    In fact , the planned projected assault made D Day look like a skirmish

    • Killmouseky
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      "Planned projected" rubbish. The "projection" for D-Day was for much higher casualties on both sides than actually materialised. No strategic plan survives its 1st encounter with the enemy - that's from Napoleon, who knew a bit about war.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.