Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Is it morally right to use atomic bombs?

  • You're all dumb

    We needed to end the air before the axis powers gained enough ground to win the war. Using the bombs knocked out one side of the war, allowing us to move troops to the other front. If we hadn't done this, we might not have won the war, or it could've cost us resources we couldn't afford to lose after the Depression.

  • Thousands vs Millions, years of continued fighting vs an almost immediate end too the war

    War is never morally right. Human beings are killing other human beings which is wrong. The feeling people feel when they take a life is, well, awful because they just killed someone. The bomb was not moral, but neither was attacking Pearl Harbor. The alternative to dropping the bomb was an invasion from the allies. This invasion would have been much, much, more inhumane because the Japanese would have to have been exterminated too the last man, woman, and child. Everyone from the elderly, to children as young as 5 or 6 was being given weapons and training to defend the homeland. It would have been a genocide on such a scale, the holocaust would have looked like a normal occurrence in the war. Also, we have not got into the casualties the allies would have suffered especially if the USSR would have gotten involved. The USSR had a tactic of throwing bodies at a fortification until that single fortification fell. They of course had the numbers to do this. America would have lost anywhere from 1-3 million troops in the invasion, and the other allies would have lost a similar amount. The decision to invade would have also prolonged the war by at least 2 years if ALL and i mean ALL of the allied powers put most of their resources into taking/exterminating Japan. Then after this their still would have been years of fighting from pockets of resistance who will not give up. So was dropping the bomb morally right? No, of course not. But, the alternative would have prolonged the war and cost many many many more lives. War is never morally right. But that is what it is, war. The goal of war is too kill the other guy as quick as possible to end it. And killing civilians is apart of that.

  • For the greater good

    The only other option would of been to invade. This would of killed thousands and thousands of both american and japanese lives. How can you possibly try to not prevent that? Also the bomb was not to kill innocent civilians it was aimed at a military strong hold, to break the Japanese heart.

  • The Alternative to the Atomic Bomb Was Less Humane and Morally Right

    The alternative to the atomic bombs was an invasion of Japan, which was already being planned for 1946, and those plans included casualty estimates even more staggering than the deaths that have left a sea of crosses in American cemeteries at Normandy and elsewhere. “Revisionist” historians have come up with casualty estimates a small fraction of what the American and British military leaders responsible for planning the invasion of Japan had come up with.No mass killing, especially of civilians, can leave any humane person happy. But compared to what? Compared to killing many times more Japanese and seeing many times more American die?

  • It is morally right to use atomic bombs.

    It is morally right to use atomic bombs. We had to do something to be able to get their attention and this was the only way to do it at the time. They ended up with the result that ended the war and effectively led them to the country that they are today.

  • Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    It is not right to kill innocent people what did they ever do to you why would you ever kill people it is no tight to use bombs I don't know why people do it but for whatever reason it is not right the day old judgement will come

  • It goes against rules and morals

    It is morally wrong to kill such masses in an unnecessary manner. But it also goes against the rules of the banning of the use of weapons of mass destruction which was put in place after the First World War, after they had seen the devastation that had bombs caused.

  • Many Killed in the incident

    A lot of people where killed instantly, with Napalm which is nearly as hot as the sun, people where vaporised and didn't have the chance to escape, with a lot more other options to scare Japan, all you need was a full on attack on land and you would have had them

  • Humans don't have the right to play God

    First of all, the bombs weren't even necessary to end the war, so it was immoral to use such unnecessary cruelty. Secondly, people in Japan are still suffering from radiation poisoning from these bombs years later. In the day that the bombs were dropped, for every 1 soldier that died, six citizens died in Japan. America did not and does not have the right to kill innocent people, at that point it is not defense of America, but killing because we are able to kill.

  • Oranges and Grapes

    So lets say you have a sheet of paper pulled taut. You throw grapes at it.They bounce off harmlessly and do no harm. Little but virtually no harm maybe a few holes but when throwing a large orange at the taut paper a large hole is torn through the center and lots of harm was done to the paper. That is how the bombing should be viewed as something that was well large and ominous,awaiting to happen. The bombing was immoral I mean what did that paper hurt you but the hands pulling the paper taut have harmed you in some way. You aim at the paper and the orange juice get the edges watery and they start to dissolve. So think about that like the bombing destroying many innocents but also having after affects. It is inhumane and cruel.

  • No,it is not.

    Do you know how much damage these was after the atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? I have been to the Atomic Bomb Dome. I saw a lot of displays. For example, I saw a lunch box burned with heat, pictures of people with burned bodies, and a watch that was stopped at 8:15 there. The displays really shocked me. I’ll not be able to forget those. It’s very harrible even now, so I think it was harrible beyond one’s imagenation . I’m certain, It’s not morality right to use atomic bombs.

  • I don't think it's morally right to use atomic bombs.

    It might be necessary for the end of the war, but it isn’t morally right. I have two reasons for this.
    First, the atomic bombs injured many people. Yhey lost many friends and theur family. Even now some of them are suffering aftereffect of the atomic bombs.
    Second, the atomic bomb shoudn’t exist in this world because it’s the inhuman weapon. It destroys many things and many people all at once. Didn’t American people have any better idea for the end of the war? I think if they discussed much more, they could have better idea. Then many Japanese people didn’t have to feel sorrow.
    We will never make mistakes like that.

  • I'm not really sure..

    It was good that it stopped WW2 but it was still quite bad, because it killed many japanese people. Thousands of people lost their lives because of this, and that's what really makes me quite upset and angry. Also, the 'dropper' of the bomb must've felt rally bad the rest of his life.

  • No,it is not morally right to use atomic bombs.

    No,it is not morally right to use atomic bombs.Killing people period is wrong but when you are talking about large groups of people it is even worse.Plus the person doing the killing is somewhat removed from the situation because they are not required to look the person in the eye when they do the killing.

  • No, it isn't.

    No, I don't believe that it was or is right to use nuclear weapons on anyone for any reason. When we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it caused horrendous devastation. Many people died instantly and many more suffered and agonizing deaths. It also caused cancers to form and birth defects. People also lost their homes and belongings.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.