Amazon.com Widgets
  • Justifiable to End War

    The bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in the end justifiable because it prevented the further deaths of civilians and soldiers, as the war against Japan would have raged on. The two atomic bombs were sent three days apart, giving Japan enough time to surrender if needed. The bombs together had devastating impacts, but they are justified because it was on the scale that was needed to end the destructive total war that World War II was.

  • Hiroshima Bombing Necessary Act

    Unfortunately, the bombing of Hiroshima was a necessary act in order to put an end to Japan's participation in World War II. If the war had continued on, then thousands more Americans would have been killed by Japanese soldiers. Instead the bombing of Hiroshima put an almost immediate end to that theater of the war.

  • It was justified

    The bombing of Hiroshima was a good decision The bombing of Hiroshima was a good decision in the respect that it saved soldiers' lives, saved resources, protected the United States and ended World War Two. Hiroshima also avenged the Pearl Harbour bombing, relieving the anticipation between the two countries. As vulgar as it may sound, the bombing of Hiroshima can also be looked at as how the atomic bomb effects people.

  • The bombing of Hiroshima was a good decision

    The bombing of Hiroshima was a good decision in the respect that it saved soldiers' lives, saved resources, protected the United States and ended World War Two. Hiroshima also avenged the Pearl Harbour bombing, relieving the anticipation between the two countries. As vulgar as it may sound, the bombing of Hiroshima can also be looked at as how the atomic bomb effects people.

  • It was, indeed

    The usage of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was and is justified to this day because it saved thousands of lives. I'm not going to argue that it wasn't a tragedy, because it was. It was tragic that Japanese forces chose to side with an insane Nazi regime. It was tragic that Japanese officials disregarded the US atomic testings and chose to attack us anyway. It was tragic that the Japanese government ordered civilians to fashion bamboo spears to fight the US ground assault. And it was especially tragic that the Japanese government refused to surrender until it was too late. It would have been just as tragic if thousands of US troops would have been killed while attempting to attack Japan, so I do think that there was justification in the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unfortunate justification.

  • Sx ,xwdwdwr 4r

    5r5 5 t t t tg t g g gg g g g b g t g gt tg f rf rf d g rt g tg d d r g d r g tg tg tg t gd t r dg t d t g d t g d t

  • Japan was given a chance.

    There have been bigger nuclear test weapons, I'm talking kilotons. Japan was given a 3-day gap to surrender after Hiroshima but they didn't take it or even ATTEMPT to make peace, if they had tried to then maybe things might have been a little different; sure it was kind of uncalled for but the US used an age-old tactic of stabbing the beast directly in the heart

  • Japan was given a chance.

    There have been bigger nuclear test weapons, I'm talking kilotons. Japan was given a 3-day gap to surrender after Hiroshima but they didn't take it or even ATTEMPT to make peace, if they had tried to then maybe things might have been a little different; sure it was kind of uncalled for but the US used an age-old tactic of stabbing the beast directly in the heart

  • The Hiroshima Bombing Saved Lives

    While this premise may sound peculiar, when weighing the cost (in lives) of an American land invasion against the dropping of the two atomic bombs, the total number of deaths (military and civilian, separate or combined) of a land invasion would outweigh by far the death toll of the atomic bombings. I think Hiroshima was a great tragedy, no doubt, but a land invasion, which would have included the destruction of many more cities by firebombing, the deaths of countless civilians (for example in said firebombing), and of course members of both armies, would have been a far greater one. Thus, by making a land invasion, which would have cost countless lives, unnecessary in a way that cost fewer lives (though still many), the Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) bombing(s) did save lives.

  • We had to!

    Yes they should have dropped the bomb. By the time they had 400,000 US prisoners. The US navy had lost 34 ships sunk, 368 damaged, and 4,407 sailors killed. It was up to the leader of the US president Harry Truman. But the pentagon planners decided to have landings on the japan but that would have killed more US troops. They did not want to have another Okinawa. They attacked us at Pearl Harbor first.

    Before we bombed we dropped leaflets on the city tell the people to leave because we were going to bomb the city. On the islands the civilians were killing themselves. I understand that millions of people lost their lives.

  • No,not at all !!

    When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, about one hundred forty thousands people died. It didn’t save thousands of lives.I think there was a different way to end world war Ⅱwithout having to use an atomic bonb. For exampie, consulations with America would have heiped. Also, Japan thinking of surrendering to America. America knew that idea. But, America had dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. It was a not fair way of thing. So, America should not have dropped an atomic bomb.
    I hope for peace all over the world.

  • America was completely self-obsessed when it came to making this judgement.

    They only took into account the amount of AMERICAN lives that would have been lost, rather than the amount of Japanese that were. America wanted only to support their own people, and evidently didn't consider the impact the atom bomb would make on Hiroshima; if they did consider it, then that makes it worse - complete disregard for lives other than American ones.

  • America was completely self-obsessed when it came to making this judgement.

    They only took into account the amount of AMERICAN lives that would have been lost, rather than the amount of Japanese that were. America wanted only to support their own people, and evidently didn't consider the impact the atom bomb would make on Hiroshima; if they did consider it, then that makes it worse - complete disregard for lives other than American ones.

  • No, not at all!

    Do you really think that it is correct to save american lives by killing ten thousands of japanese people??? Are 300000 japanese lives equivalent to only 3000 american lives? No way! It can not be, that america attacked with a nuclear weapon instead of an honorable, and remember able fight?

  • Civilians man !!

    The A-bombs were dropped on civilians. It would, at least, be justifiable if the bombs were dropped in a military dominated area and targeting things like barracks, ammunation factories etc. This is considered to be an act of terrorism. This act by the US is exactly similar to what the Germans (Nazi) were doing during the time. They attacked enemy civilians. The A-bombs are not designed to destroy the enemy and the enemy only;they will also destroy other things like schools, hospitals, historical places, religious buildings, and so on. This shows that the bombing might be a cause for the demolition of one’s culture. And we should know better than to destroy ones culture because it is not what we want for ourselves. And if we justify the bombing on those two Japanese cities, we are automatically supporting the idea of all the Japanese heritage and culture that is specific to that area can be destroyed just because America and Japan are having a dispute. There were other parts in Japan that were in military protected in case of an American invasion. The city of Kyushu was known to be the center for military based operations and it is one of the few places where japan has mobilized an army in case of a US attack after the Pearl Harbor incident. Yes, even the Japanese had the decency to attack a naval base instead of say L.A. California. And what does the US do instead of attacking Kyushu? They go and attack civilian cities that had no connections with the army. So I do not believe that America can, in any way, justify their deeds over any reasons.

  • I think that the bombing on Hiroshima was not justified.

    An atomic bomb killed many people.Why did America fall an atomic bomb on Hiroshima?One people said''It was needed to end the war''. I don't think so.Genaral people don't think so.Why did they have to die? I can't understand of American's thinking. Of course,I don't think all Americans are bad.Thank you for reading.

  • All have the right to life.

    Even though, soldiers have given up that right to life. So, I think that the bombing was not justified, for if we had not bombed Hiroshima, thousands of soldiers, Allied or Japanese, would have been killed as the Allies would have stormed the land. However, these soldiers were willing to give up their lives, and they were prepared to die in service for their country and fellow citizens. On August 6th, 1945, the Elona Gay had dropped the "Little Boy" as it was codenamed, to succumb the Japanese into surrender. Hiroshima, a manufacturing city also had many unsuspecting citizens in the surrounding areas. At 8:15 A.M, the worlds of many Japanese civilian families were finished. Many people were killed in the explosion of the bomb and the incineration of a fire blast radius of about 1 mile, yet the radiation affected numerous amounts of people over time. Not killing these civilians, even if it were killing more soldiers, even Allied soldiers, would be more right and just, for all have a right to live, yet these soldiers had given up that right to defend the lives of those who kept it.

  • Hiroshima had nothing to do with the Japanese

    .

    Let that sink in a moment, then I will explain.

    Japan was already discussing surrender late July 1945, and would have capitulated with or without the bombings. However over in recently 'liberated' Europe negotiations were not going well with Stalin. The Soviets had paid the lions share in blood during the second world war and had half of Europe in their pocket. However Stalin felt he deserved more, and as his army outnumbered the allies 2 to 1, was in a position to take it by force if need be.

    When the first atomic bomb was dropped as a show of the US's technological superiority, but Stalin, acting on information from his recently captured German nuclear scientists, surmised that it had taken the US years to develop and build the bomb and it would be years until the US had another bomb operational. Thus Stalin called the US's bluff and remained unmoving in the negotiations. When the second, and last remaining, bomb was dropped Stalin bought into the US's bluff and contented himself with half of Europe.

    Thus war with the Soviet Union was avoided, and all it cost the Allies was two nukes, a few million Japanese men, women and children, years of cancer inducing radioactive fallout in the Japanese mainland, and decades of oppression for Poland and other absorbed European countries.

  • The cost was too much!

    Everyone argues about how much we are in debt to Japan, but if we hadn't wasted so much money on bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we wouldn't have had to waste more money on helping rebuild them and we could have paid off a good bit of out debt to Japan.

  • It is disgusting

    I find it disgusting that anyone would think that the deaths of thousands of people is justified, just because Pearl Harbour was bombed doesn't give anyone a reason to bomb innocent people. President Truman should have listened to the scientists that told him it was to dangerous or to do it in a safe area and to bring the Japanese leaders over to see it blow up.
    This is disgusting


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