Amazon.com Widgets
  • We had no choice.

    The Japanese military was preparing the "Innocent people" for war. They gave them bamboo sticks and told them to fight the "American invaders". US losses were predicted to be around 1,000,000 men. Japanese losses were to be in the millions. Actually, there was a famous propaganda campaign the US did where B24's dropped leaflets saying "No one is innocent" because the US was aware that everyone would be an enemy when they invaded Japan. It's sad that the bombings did happen but it saved lives. And besides, Japan has blood on their hands. Was the Rape of Nanking moral? No.

  • Is Anything About War Moral?

    When countries are embroiled in war, does either side actually think of the enemy? No. There is nothing moral about war. It is destructive & harsh. It is chaos & bloodshed. Before peace is reached, everyone suffers.

    I cannot think of 1 weapon, used by the Japanese or the U.S., that was designed to be moral. The idea is to kill & disable the enemy. Battleships are designed for battle -- not cruises. Bombs are designed to decimate troops & eliminate targets. Morality isn't a priority in accomplishing victory. The only real morality in war is when peace is reached.

  • But was the attack on Pearl Harbor Necessary?

    They attacked us to get the country of United States into the war .Retaliation was not a choice it was matter of protecting the citizens of United States and stopping anymore attacks.You should expect a surprise attack back if you gave one in the first place.The killing of the citizens in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was avoidable if they havent attacked ,simple.

  • They can not say they weren't warned.

    We gave them a clear and decisive warning, which they did not heed. It was their own fault. If I tell you to stop touching me or I will make you stop, and you continue touching me, can you really say that you were a victim? Especially since we did not want war in the first place until they decided to bomb Pearl Harbor. By bombing Hiroshima, we did kill thousands, but if the war had continued, more people than the population of Hiroshima would have died, since there would have been casualties on both sides and not just Japan. If you look at how many died in Hiroshima compared to how many would've died in a prolonged war, you could define it as the "lesser of two evils".

  • Japan had already surrendered

    Someone even stated this 3 weeks before the bomb went off. Think about this: Japan bombs America's naval forces, killing less than 60 civilians, and killing army dudes who chose to fight back. America nukes 2 of Japan's cities, re-leveling them. How many civilians do you think were killed there???

  • It was the lesser of two evils.

    The combative nature of Japanese culture at the time ensured that they weren't going to give up, which essentially left us with two courses of action on how to end the war. The only possibility other than a nuclear strike was a full land invasion of Japan. Now, their culture also caused them to view peaceful surrender as dishonorable, thus, between death in the battle or mass suicide, taking this route would have doomed most of the civilians population. American casualty estimations were extremely high as well. Our entire military had just suffered through what was arguably the bloodiest war in history, and asking them to fight and die further when an alternate route was available would have been quite barbaric. The nuclear attack, while it did kill innocents, prevented the deaths of millions more. So yes, out of the two choices available, I believe it was the more ethical one.

  • First nuclear warfare

    I support the bombing of Hiroshima because we did what we needed to defend the United States. Since we did not start the war the United States ended the war the best way they deemed necessary. No matter how you look at the bomb the civilians were casualties of war. This happened because the Japaneses attacked us.

  • Yes Yes Yes

    Ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya

  • Yes Yes Yes

    Ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya

  • Yes Yes Yes

    Ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya ya

  • It was an attack on innocents.

    Military bases would have been one thing. Soldiers knew what they're getting into, but to bomb a city which killed an enormous amount of innocent people, people who may not have even supported the war, is sickening. The bombs were wasted anyway. They could have been used for military purposes, but instead it was used to commit an act of genocide targeted specifically at innocent men, women, and children.

  • Not even remotely.

    One can make an argument for the NECESSITY of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. One can make an argument for it being the better of two bad choices. But to claim that being the lesser of two evils thus makes our nuclear strikes on Japan moral is just ridiculous. To destroy two cities full of civilians and decimate their populations further with two generations of radiation damage is immoral on its face. Whether it was the best of a bad job or not.

  • Hitler was defeated by then and why Hiroshima?

    By the time the bomb was dropped Hitler had already been defeated. The entire purpose for the creation of the bomb was to get that sort of technology before Hitler could use it to take over the entire world. Furthermore, Hiroshima was home to many innocent people and the use of the bomb on it was nothing more than a demonstration of power. With the amount of lives that were lost I cannot say that this act was moral.

  • Just to clarify.

    It is obvious that the point of this opinion column is not whether or not Hiroshima was necessary to end WW2 in the pacific or whether it was right to do it, but rather is it morally justifiable to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians on purpose. That being said I think it is monstrous to declare it moral. I find it horrifying that so many Americans agree that it was moral. I lose a lot of respect for the US over this topic. While I do believe that it was necessary, it was not a moral thing to do. It in no way is morally justifiable. That being said, necessity is more important than morality, but to answer the question, no, it was not moral.

  • Necessary but immoral

    There was nothing moral about bombing Japan, however, in the larger scheme of things it was necessary in order to prevent future massacers of the same scale. It is simply the steryotypical question "What is moral about killing woman and children?" nothing at all, no matter if it was done by ones hands, or by a bomb thousands of miles away. Nothing can be given to the Japanese that would make up for the thousands of families killed in the bombing. It is an decison which we made that we must take a breath and close our eyes and understand the events which took place due to it, and how deadly the decison was to others. Only because of such a decision though are we able to help become the better of man kind, the more moral of people and more forgiving of human beings. Unfortunetly, only peace and victory these days can be achieved first through loss.

  • No it wasn't.

    The human garbage who insist on bringing in their flawed morales to support the use of the bomb are idiots. Never is it justified to take the lives of women, babies, toddlers, children, or elderly folk of either gender. Especially not with a weapon that started the succeeding Colf War.

  • No it wasn't

    No attack on anyone is moral, but the Japanese brought America into the war, costing us millions of lives. After the surrender of Germany, they wanted to keep fighting. So, in a necessary evil, we had to end the fight on our own merits. It may have not been the right choice, but by God, was it the most necessary and effective.

    Posted by: O.Z

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