Japan surrendered, so yes.

I think not..It was more than 50 years already and many people still suffer from the effects (radiation) of the atomic bomb.

Yes and No.... Yes we had to know what it was capable of...No...It made us more vulnerable to other countrys when they found out that hand to hand combat was not the only way to bring down an army.

I think its a hard decision to make really. At that time they had no ideas of the radiation effects of the atomic bomb and infact at that time they still thought radiation was good for you (see quack radiation in wikipedia if you want to be horrified), though the tide was turning around that time as evidence started to say it wasn't. So they probably weren't aware the long term effects the radiation would have on people let alone what doses are lethal/dangerous. I think it was used to save lives in a war which was rapidly turning into a meat grinder for both sides and probably in the long run it did save lives and end the war, but as I wasn't there I can't really say for sure if it was or not. As for the applications such a device brought then yes it was a good choice. Once people knew the sheer power it had and looked into controlling it, it opened many new fields of science and has brought us better technology (radiation treatments for example) and cheaper less environmentally damaging power (assuming of course no leakage and proper storage which is hard to do). It also revolutionised our understanding of particle science and physics. It probably also stemmed the possibility of a war after WW2 with the USSR as both sides held off fights because of the fear of bringing nuclear war, without the atomic bomb there as a deterrent there would be little to stop a Conflict instead of the Cold War. This probably saved even more lives. In the short term when the bomb was used it's dubious but in the long term it's probably saved more people than it killed via the new science and technology gained from it.

medium the fact it saved the us but killed tons of people in 1900's hundreds.

For America and allies it was a good choice. For those who suffered and who are still suffering by the barbarity unleased by Fatman and Little Boy, it was a very bad choice.

Scientifically yes, humanitarianly (is that a word?) NO.

OK, Nelson, I'm about to take the heat off of you here. A case can be made showing how humanitarian the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. Immediately following the bombings, and in the 4 month period afterwards, a total of 103,000 people died in both cities combined. 64,000 in Hiroshima and 39,000 in Nagasaki. Unrecorded deaths of military or foreign personnel may make that estimate higher. By far, the majority of deaths were due to blast and extremely high temperatures. Radiation alone beyond 1 kilometer (about a half mile) from ground zero would not have been enough to cause death. Beyond 1.5 kilometers, radiation exposure was greatly reduced even further. As for subsequent deaths by radiation exposure, to date 400 people in the 30 year period following the bombings have died due to radiation induced illness like leukemia and cancer. That is expected to rise to about 550 total. Birth defects? Mother Nature is outstanding at weeding out birth defects by spontaneous abortion, whatever the cause. It happens all the time. In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, over the following 9 months unborn babies were born stillborn or with defects; beyond that NONE. This was due to radiation exposure directly to the unborn child. I know what you're probably thinking: "Oh, that was HORRIBLE! How could this POSSIBLY be considered a humanitarian example?" I'll tell you how. That 103,000 was for BOTH cities combined. The fire bombing in Tokyo alone accounted for over 100,000 men, women, and children. 67 cities were firebombed by the United States BEFORE we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kobe, Bebbe, Yokahama, Osaki, and more. More than 500,000 people died from the fire bombing alone and 5,000,000 made homeless. Japanese were comitting suicide at the mere hint of an air raid, that was how bad it was. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were on the list to be fire bombed, but were subsequently removed at they were designated as targets for the atomic bombs. Odds were that nearly as many people would have died when we fire bombed them, had we not dropped nuclear weapons on them. And for those of you who may think we were unfair, the Japanese government was warned about what we were going to do. The citizens of Nagasaki were also TOLD that they were the next city we would bomb with the new weapon via propaganda flyers, which is why their casualties were so much lower. Our plans were to reduce Japan's abilities to conduct combat in preparation for an INVASION. To that end, General LeMay would have leveled every city he could possibly bomb based upon military and industrial capabililties. And STILL our estimated casualties for the United States was OVER ONE MILLION DEAD. Not dead and wounded, DEAD. This in addition to millions more Japanese deaths due to additional fire bombings and the invasion itself. Now, it's all well and good that we who have never been in combat believe civilians are innocent victims; but the stark reality is that when a nation goes to war, the WHOLE POPULATION goes to war. Whether it's raising food, collecting recyclable materials, joining the military, teaching your junior high and high school students how to operate a lathe, manufacturing arms and ammunition, or whatever. Yes, there are conscientious objectors and God bless them. But like it or not, even they are caught up in it. How innocent was Rosey the Riveter here in the U.S.? How about the farmers raising food in Iowa farmlands? Get my point? Warfare is HORRIBLE. Slapping Politically Correct labels and limitations on it doesn't make it any less so. You think it is easy for a soldier to kill? That they are all trained baby killers, like so many people accused many of the Vietnam Veterans? BULLSHIT! Training a man to kill is the most difficult task you can imagine. Even harder is for one of those highly trained soldiers to actually kill another human being on a personal level. You who have never faced that decision have NO IDEA what it takes for that soldier to pull the trigger and live with it. In fact, you have no idea how many soldiers NEVER INTENTIONALLY FIRED THEIR WEAPONS AT AN ENEMY SOLDIER during all of WWII, or any military engagement for that matter. It is that difficult, people! For better or worse, the United States used nuclear weapons in WWII against the Japanese. Arguing about "Should we or shouldn't we have" is pointless. WE DID IT! To date, the U.S. is the ONLY country to have waged nuclear war on another. And like it or not, that decision hastened the surrender of Japan and save millions of lives on both sides of the war. To our good fortune, just in case you didn't know, President Truman made a conscious decision NOT to conduct any further atomic bombings of Japan, even with more atomic bombs being readied. No matter how the invasion went. So think about that! Truman was willing to sacrifice over a MILLION American lives by NOT using additional atomic weapons. Such conduct has been called treasonous in other circumstances. Personally, I think there is an incredible moral statement right there. We had the weapons, we knew by personal experience how devistatingly effective they were, and WE CHOSE NOT TO USE THEM ANY MORE. A decision held to world wide since then, I might also add. My Mom and Dad both served in WWII. Dad was an Army Engineer serving in the South Pacific and was to have been among the first wave of the invasion of Japan. So yes, I have a personal stake and admittedly a huge bias because I and my siblings would not be here now had it not been for that decision. Neither would many of my Uncles and therefore my cousins also. In the decades since WWII, that adds up to well over a hundred relatives and I would hazard a guess that many of you reading this also fall under similar circumstances. So personally, I have no regrets. In war, it's them or us. This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it, supported by some of the things I've outlined. So you can Down Rate me all you want, people. I'll support your decision to show your opinion which ever way you choose. I believe in your right to do so, and THAT'S why I volunteered to serve 20 years in the Navy. Even if I don't agree with you. Nelson, God bless you for your opinion and even more so for how you responded. I'll take the DRs from here. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf52.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Bombing_During_World_War_II#Japanese_bombing

I hate to say it, but it likely saved lives.

Well... it was inefficient. Biological weapons could have been used far more cheaply... Though of course, perhaps their psychological effect wouldn't have been as strong...