Amazon.com Widgets

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki legitimate military targets?

  • Yes, they ended the war.

    Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, because they were proven successful ones. The nuclear bombs were the last straw in what ended the war and the atrocities against the Jews. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategically placed. Without the nuclear bombs, the option would have been to send an army into those areas, which would have been worse.

  • Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets at the time. This is because of the fact that Japan was a member of the Axis forces during World War II. The Allied forces needed to cause as much pain and destruction as possible to show dominance and to win World War II.

  • Yes they were.

    The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. Japan was the one who started the war, and as the old adage goes, "All if fair in love and war", made those cities targets. If Japan thinks otherwise, then they should have thought about that before they bombed the US.

  • Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.

    World War II was a total war, and everything was a military target. The Japanese used Kamikaze planes to destroy entire Allied ships, and they refused to accept reasonable terms of surrender. Truman was justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the war quickly and save lives.

  • Saved American lives.

    By bombing these two cities we were able to end the war right then and there. If we had sent in American troops we would have lost hundreds of thousands of American lives and continued the war for much longer. We probably saved a lot lot of Japanese lives too because the civilians would have been forced the the government to stay and fight to the death.

  • Saved American lives.

    By bombing these two cities we were able to end the war right then and there. If we had sent in American troops we would have lost hundreds of thousands of American lives and continued the war for much longer. We probably saved a lot lot of Japanese lives too because the civilians would have been forced the the government to stay and fight to the death.

  • Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets

    To begin with, the Japanese don't have conventional factories. Everything was assembled piecemeal, in cottages all over the cities. Also, the Japanese were encouraging their civilians to rush the invading Americans with spears and the like, or failing that, commit suicide, in the event of a land invasion of the Japanese islands. They had earlier engaged in what is known as the Battle of Saipan, where the Emperor told them that civilians who committed suicide would get the same spiritual treatment in the afterlife as warriors who died honorably. This was so ingrained in Japanese culture that at least 1,000 civilians did so. The only way to stop that kind of mass suicide in Japan, as well, more importantly, to save the lives of Americans, was to use a weapon so powerful and terrifying that it could raze cities in a matter of seconds. With that kind of firepower, and a willingness to use it arrayed against you, and you not having any defense against it, there is one rational recourse: run up the white flag, and hope for generous terms.

  • Yes, they were legitimate military targets.

    In a war all components of a country are considered a legitimate military target. The object of war is to win. We were able to cripple Japan with two bombs. This saved millions of lives for the Allies. It also confirmed our country as a super power in the world.

  • Yes, the United States was retaliating against those who started the war.

    The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate as Japan started the war. The United States bombed the cities to retaliate and end the war. The bombing effectively ended the war and as a result lives were saved as well. When Japan attacked the United States, which opened them up to retaliation, including bombings. The military lost many lives due to the attach from Japan.

  • Both Certainly Military Targets.

    Hiroshima, Japan housed about 40,000 military personnel prior to the atomic bombing on August 6th, 1945. Hiroshima was home to both the Japanese Second Army headquarters, and the Fifth Division headquarters. The Japanese naval academy was in Hiroshima. Hiroshima is a port city, and staged many of the ships that attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7th, 1941. About 20,000 of the 40,000 military personnel stationed in Hiroshima died during the bombing.

    Nagasaki, Japan housed about 20,000 military personnel prior to the atomic bombing on August 9th, 1945. Nagasaki was considered "one of the most important ports in southern Japan" according to the the website ww2db.Com. Warships were produced at the Mitsubishi steel and arms works, and the Mitsubishi ordinance works was a key producer of torpedoes, both factories were based in Nagasaki. About 9,000 of the 20,000 military personnel stationed in Nagasaki were killed in the bombing.

    For those reasons, it is one U.S. navy veterans opinion that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.

    Sources:
    worldwar2database.Com http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=49

    wikipedia.org
    https://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki?Wprov=sfla1

  • The Atomic bombs weren't even necessary.

    Japan surrendered because of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(1945). The loss of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have had little impact on Japan's war efforts. Kure is only a short distance from Hiroshima and that is where Japan was building battleships. That would have been an legitimate target and would have hurt the Japanese military.

  • Hiroshima and Nagasaki were known cities in Japan

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not legitimate military targets because they only had civilian there. There were no militery camp or bases there during the WWII. At the time of WWII Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just normal cities just like any other cities. No doubt The actions that Japaness took on preal harbor was not proper.

  • Disregard for civilian life.

    This was a war crime. There were many more civilian casualties than military. America is the only country to have ever used nuclear bombs on people. How would Americans feel if an atomic bomb was dropped on one of their cities during war? Bear in mind America IS always at war. Would it not be considered anything less than terrorism? America used racist propaganda and heavy censorship to justify it's actions. Is this any different from the Nazi regime? The American government should be profoundly ashamed of this act of mass murder!

  • It was completely unnecessary

    Dwight Eisenhauer made it quite clear that Japan was defeated. The war was won. This was a kind of war crime. It made no sense in the context of winning the war. We had become innured to atrocity by this point in the endless carnage. We had lost our perspective.

  • The United States murdered hundreds of thousands of women and children in cold blood.

    The declaration of war by the Soviet Union and the United States allowing the emperor to stay in power (something they were already prepared to do) would have been enough to halt the war. The war hadn't already ended primarily because of miscommunication between the US and Japan. The US had repeatedly stated that only an unconditional surrender would be acceptable. Japan believed this to mean their emperor would be executed. Considering that he was a deity in their minds a certain hesitation was probably warranted. What was not warranted was the murder of the thousands of noncombatants in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Including thirty-three schools in Hiroshima alone!. Hiroshima's harbors were mined and the US navy had control in that area. The factories of Hiroshima were on the edge of the city far from the blast site. The story of millions of allied lives being saved is a lie plain and simple. According to the Bullitin of Atomic scientists and the Independence monthy the worst case scenario of an Allied invasion was the death of forty six thousand american servicemen. Less than either of the two bombings. As for the murderous Japanese suicidal soldier? He doesn't exist. Anyone trying to explain the "ingraned culture of Japanese soldiers" is probably ingaing in racism. The generalization of an entire nation of people is wrong. All Japanese soldiers were not mindless savages. This viewpoint was propagated by the United States government to gain support for the war. The United States should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  • The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not a legitimate action.

    Obviously not. There is no reason to legitimate a death of civilian people. Well, there is an argument that says that people who support the military actions are the same guilty as those who govern but what if they were pressured to do so? In Nuremberg Trial, the Germans supported that they couldn't do anything else and they were just following orders but! It was decided that when you have the power to be neutral or to avoid participation into halping the military mechanism then you cannot escape the facts. But there is another BUT: There is none who can actually judge the life of a young child!

  • Japan would've surrendered anyway.

    The war would have ended "prior to 31 December and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945" by the US Strategic Bombing Survey. The war was bound to end. The atomic bombing only shortened the war by a mere few months. International law states that deliberate attacks on civilian population was not permitted. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was compromised of mostly civilian population even if Hiroshima had military bases. The death resulted in mostly defenseless civilians.

  • International Law and Rules of War

    "Hague IV, which reaffirmed and updated Hague II (1899), contains the following clauses:

    Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

    Article 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
    Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
    It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand."

    Now this deals with targeted bombardment and mainly sea to land and land to sea. Yet, it was taken as the basis for aerial bombardment as well up to WWII. The fact that the atomic bomb was blind bombardment and that tests done before showed that the bombing would be indiscriminate and break all the above Articles should have made the US realize that they would be breaking the rules of war.

    Finally it seems ironic that the United States called for all nations in the conflict of WWII to not participate in indiscriminate bombing yet did it themselves.

    "The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population...Has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.... I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every Government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations."

    -Franklin D. Roosevelt

  • Target selection was not based on Military value

    Declassified documents from the Target Committee of Los Alamos May 10-11, 1945, states the following criteria were used when the selection of targets for the Atom Bomb;
    1 - they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter
    2 - they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast
    3 - they are unlikely to be attacked by next August

    Use against Military target - It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.

    Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, TS Manhattan Project File '42-'46, folder 5D Selection of Targets, 2 Notes on Target Committee Meetings.

  • Target selection was not based on Military value

    Declassified documents from the Target Committee of Los Alamos May 10-11, 1945, states the following criteria were used when the selection of targets for the Atom Bomb;
    1 - they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter
    2 - they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast
    3 - they are unlikely to be attacked by next August

    Use against Military target - It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.

    Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of the Office of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, TS Manhattan Project File '42-'46, folder 5D Selection of Targets, 2 Notes on Target Committee Meetings.


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