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.

  • 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

    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.

  • 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.

  • President Truman saved lives by dropping those bombs.

    If the bombs were not dropped on a city, who knows if that would've even scared the Japanese were surrendering. The Japanese had a saying "Honor and Glory before Surrender." Plus, instead of bombs, what if America had invaded Japan? Well, if you take the Invasion of Okinawa as an outline(death rate), it is estimated that 41 million of the 71,900,000 citizens in Japan would have died. These Atomic Bombs, though it may seem that Truman wanted to save American lives by sacrificing the Japanese, he ended up saving both...

  • 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.

  • America used the bomb mainly to scare the U.S.S.R.

    I want to start with this quote from the League of Nations; “Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence.” This quote shows just how lawfully irresponsible this act was. Yes, Hiroshima had a military base, but the bomb was not even aimed there. It was aimed at the center of the city, with too many casualties.

  • The United States should not have bombed Japanese cities; there were other ways of ending the war while avoiding American and Allied casualties.

    The bombings were a disaster for Japan and killed many innocent people; bombing Japan was unnecessary and unjustified. There were alternatives to bombing Japanese cities; the United States could have bombed an uninhabited area or used another tactic while still forcing the Japanese surrender. There were other reasons behind the bombing than saving American and Allied lives, and these reasons did not justify the killing of innocent people.

  • The United States should not have bombed Japanese cities; there were other ways of ending the war while avoiding American and Allied casualties.

    The bombings were a disaster for Japan and killed many innocent people; bombing Japan was unnecessary and unjustified. There were alternatives to bombing Japanese cities; the United States could have bombed an uninhabited area or used another tactic while still forcing the Japanese surrender. There were other reasons behind the bombing than saving American and Allied lives, and these reasons did not justify the killing of innocent people.


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