There is no reason to blame America for atom-bombing Japan as it is a war. America had been battered by the Japanese and saw their way out. Atom-Bombing Japan. While it might have been harsh it was a necessary part of a blood thirsty war.
"America did not send a clear warning to civilians - one that was efficient."
"America made no attempts to negotiate with Japan in advance. "
Pearl Harbour had no "clear warning to civilians" or "negotiation attempts". The Americans took the exact same principles as the Japanese, but used their superior power and weapons.
Also the NO fail to mention how the bombing of Japan also abruptly ended the onslaught of Japanese attacks on America.
Japan joined the war and started the fight with America. War is harsh.
America was just playing the game of war and the Japanese are still hating on them.
To respond to revic: Was it tragic that we had to bomb Japan? Yes, it was, but it was certainly necessary. For one, we actually did send Japan warnings. We demonstrated what the bombs were capable of on un-occupied islands. They refused to surrender or come to any sort of deal that would have prevented the need to bomb them. They were fully away of how horrible the results of being bombed would be, but they refused to surrender. An invasion would have resulted in more death, so while it was bad, the bombings were needed. And in regard to provoking them into war, you're right, we did provoke them into bombing Pearl harbor; however, just because we started it, doesn't mean that we don't have the right to end it. Had we not done what we did, it would have just lead to more tragic deaths on both sides.
The United States clearly said to Japan, if you don't cut it out, we're gonna drop this bomb. Japan didn't care, so we dropped it. Yes it was a little cruel, but Japan was doing terrible things to Korea and China. And yes the USA hasn't been the nicest, but we warned them!
Mr. Kbub these were for the most part different men who decided to use this weapon of mass destruction. Yes a few of them had given orders before that resulted in unnecessary deaths but this pole is not about that. You say it was an act of terrorism, and Mr. Seeginomikata says it was an act of murder. It was in actuality an attempt many millions of more innocent lives that would have been lost in a full scale allied invasion. Japan was not going to surrender under any other condition. Almost every Japanese from those children that could barely toddle to the men that could barely walk on how to fight if the allies invaded. Children would have had bombs strapped to themselves and they would run amongst soldiers or under tanks and armored vehicles and blast themselves. They formed banzai brigades with women armed with sharpened sticks and bamboo. They were meant to charge into platoons of allied soldiers and attempted to stab them to death. I do not think it would have done much good if the civilians were properly informed of the possible devastation of an A-bomb for these people saw the Emperor as a God. Also their government was controlled by the military and if the people caused dissidence those participating in it would shortly cease to live. Also no one deserves to be nuked. I emphasis that, "No one deserves to be nuked." Over 3 million allied troops would have landed and the projected casualties were over 1 million. But more importantly the Japanese could have lost over 1/3 of their entire population, most of them women and children. I wish there could have been another way of ending the war.
America had made attempts to negotiate a year earlier but the Japanese responded saying they would never surrender for it was in their honor code and religion that if they surrendered they would lose their souls when they died. The embargo before the beginning of the war was an attempt to discourage the Japanese from building themselves and becoming powerful enough the U.S. itself. We know how that turned out.
Also the holocaust and 9/11 were unprovoked, were not necessary to anyone, and pointless. The bombing of Japan was provoked by their refusal to surrender to conventional invasion threats and it was aimed to ending the war as soon as possible, with as little lives lost as possible, and to prevent a would have been another east and west Berlin in Japan. That might have added to much tension during the Cuban missile crisis that could have been the twig that broke the mules back, or in other words, world wide nuclear war that would have resulted in the possible annihilation of the modern era. As Einstein's reply when asked what we would be fighting with in WW4, "spears and stone knives." So I say the bombing of Japan saved not only the future of Japan but possibly the future of the world.
How could it not be justified? I am no person for war, but they attacked us first. IMO they got what was coming to them and deserved it. Lives were lost, especially civilian, and that's always tragic. But seriously, think of what would've happened if we hadn't bombed them. The war would've raged on with Japan, claiming more lives than the atomic bombs did.
It was the best option to end the war. The name of the game is to suppress the enemy and force a surrender in the fastest amount of time. The United States did not kill as many people as they could have if they dropped a bomb on Tokyo. Also lives would have been loss on the side of the U.S. if the war continued.
Dropping the A-Bomb was not terrorism, it was declared war. It wasn't a preemptive strike either. In fact the war had been raging for years and Japan even drew first blood! A land invasion of Japan would have devastated the entire country. Japan's troops were known for fighting to the last man and often committed suicide rather than surrender. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese and American lives would have been lost in the battle. While the A-Bomb was horrible and wiped Nagasaki and Hiroshima off the map, it did spare the majority of the island from being devastated by further bombing and war. It is a true tragedy that the bomb had to be dropped on civilians as well, however the A-bomb was not a precision weapon. It did exactly what it was made to do, end the war.
So many people were being slaughtered, and Japan's leaders would rather die then surrender. America had to do something to stop the war, and normal bombs were not doing the trick. Also, one could consider it revenge for Pearl Harbor. War is messy time, and you do what you have to, and using an atomic bomb was necessary to end the war.
I believe that the atomic bombing in Japan was justified but seriously not something anybody should be proud of. I don't think that there was much of a choice to really do anything else or think they really had any other options. I think it was also justified because Japan (although not the citizens) brought America into ww2 when they attacked pearl harbor. I think that despite the cons of the innocent people dying and everything bad that it the atomic bomb caused, that it caused more good because it ended the world war 2 and prevented more than just 150,000 million people dying (the number of japanese that died from the bombing). I think it was an appropriate yet saddening thing that it had to have happened.
If the war had continues the number of lives lost would have been greater. Soldiers and civilians of both powers would have died and a countless amount of debt would strict both countries. Also America needed time to stay ahead in the Cold War, if the Pacific War had not ended, the Cold War could have had a very different outcome.
There is nothing about Japan that uniquely caused them to be deserving of an atomic attack--especially compared to the United States, who are responsible for far more deaths due to genocide, such as the massacre of 80% of the Filipino population, the massacre of millions of American Indians, the enslavement, rape, or lynching of millions of black Americans, and indirectly supporting the authoritarian regimes all over the world. The use of these doomsday-esque weapons murdered hundred of thousands of noncombatant humans, as well as made these areas a radioactive wasteland, infecting everything from plants to the water supply to fetuses for decades after. The only possible reason why Japan should have been bombed was that they somehow deserved it because they are Japanese--the conclusion of racism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and revenge. Through using a nuclear weapon, the United States was able to bully a victory--what made the attack on Japan so terrorizing was not only the sheer destructive power, but the willingness of the United States to commit such evils against noncombatants in the name of 'security.'
Most people bring up a hypotothetically worse invasion up, and talk about how it was a good way to end the war quick.
They do not speak of how America made no attempts to negotiate with Japan in advance.
They do not speak of how America did not send a clear warning to civilians - one that was efficient.
They do not speak of how America had provoked the war with their embargo in the first place, and how Cordell Hull had then during the negotiations always stated that it was pointless.
To talk about the atrocities in China is a foolish excuse, as these civilians had absolutely nothing to do with that.
Historian Hasegawa arguments that the A-bombs weren't the thing that ended the war, but that the Sovjet invasion in Manchuria was of more importance.
All these arguments Con, and yet i saw that the first time this question was asked, alot of people patriottically said "yes, justified!" as if they could have simply shouted "Murica!" as well.
That, dear people of Debate.Org, is not history.
You can't pick and choose which civilian mass murders are okay and which ones are not. Mass murder of innocent civilians is mass murder of innocent civilians. Was the holocaust justified? Was 9/11 attack justified? The answer the above question should be the same as the ones I just provided.
It is impossible to justify such an evil act. There are many different ways to go about war, to completely destroy thousands of lives is unnecessary. Moreover, the chemical damages done by the atom bomb will never ever go away, it did permanent damage.
In addition, I would like to say that Japan was out of control at the time. However, there are better ways to handle situations like that instead of just nuking innocent people, let alone anyone.
I agree with Seeginomikata that this is a double standard and that murder is always murder. There is a reason that modern militaries around the world invest millions-billions of dollars on advanced precision guided munitions. It is to avoid unnecessary damage and deaths in combat. Noncombatants should NEVER be a target in war. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
Dropping of the bomb was the worst mistake the United States has made by far. There was no reason to drop the bomb. The only reason it was dropped was because the big wigs that made the bomb wanted to see it in action. You cant let millions of dollars of research to go to waste. But who cares about my opinions. Go ahead and google search memoirs or the American generals present during the bombing. Many will say that the bombs were unnecessary. A successful blockade or regular bombings would have done the trick. This is all according to their expert opinions. Some generals that opposed the bombs were even kept out of the meetings.
The next part gets even worse. After crippling the Japanese government, the US did nothing to help the people who's lives they just destroyed. Radiation poisoning, malnutrition, and disease ran uncontrolled because the government was gone. One of the biggest secrets was the effects of radiation poisoning. American news reporters and news papers were forbidden from writing about what is happening to the people. The reason for that is because humans sympathize for one another. The only solution was to dehumanize Japanese and cover up stories. The US should be ashamed for hurting all those people.
This is the key part of history that is avoided in the textbooks. Japan in the last weeks of the war realised that things weren't good for them, and they couldn't continue the war (after Hitler's death) by themselves. They repeatedly tried to surrender, but America wouldn't have it. Yes, Shadowhuntress, one COULD consider it revenge for Pearl Harbour, but is killing 226,000 more people than at Pearl Harbour, not to mention bringing a new evil into the world really justice? It was just an experiment with a made up reason. It is sickening. As much as I am glad America won the war, I criticise it's poor decision in this. There were other ways to do it, as the war was over anyway technically.
A bombs are bad, you could've just threantened to drop an a-bomb, you could've even bombed militry businesses, but bombing innocent citizens to make the other side surrender is just following nazis. Nazis did that, why do we follow the nazi's examples? You killed millions! I mean I have a grudge against all japaense people and I think this is wrng.
The murder of innocent people is never justified. The U.S could have bombed a legitimate military target instead of city full of civilians. This in its self make those who ordered the bombing war criminals and terrorists. Using the atom bomb on civilians was no different than what Al-Qaeda did on 9-11, both were horrible but the atom bomb killed many more.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens were killed by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is horrific to think that any country would commit such atrocities and claim the title of moral superior over the rest of the world. It sickens me to this day and it is without question that the attacks were unjust. If you study history at all, the bombings were not necessary. We were winning the war by attrition already and were only a months from securing our victory without doing this.