Was the U.S. justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
The US was justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Japan already killed over 2,000 people in the Pearl Harbor bombings. We had done nothing to provoke them, unless you count our cutting off trade with Japan, limiting their oil supply. That was also reasonable, as they were rapidly conquering the Indian Ocean and wanted to take the Pacific too.
In addition, this was nearing the end of WWII. Hitler and Germany were already out of the picture, but Japan was still strong, holding several hundred islands in the Indian Ocean. We moved to take out Japan by defeating the Japanese on several islands, but because of their kamikazes, we took heavy casualties, and the Japanese lost far less men than we did. A full-scale invasion of Japan would have cost thousands upon thousands of American lives, and that was simply unacceptable! Dropping the atomic bombs saved American lives and crippled the Japanese from attacking us, thus effectively ending WWII in the Pacific Ocean.Posted by: Timmy_RWe had no other choice.
It was either drop the bombs, kill a few thousand people or not drop the bomb, the war lingers on and more people die than the bombs killed. WW2 had to stop and this made it happen. Neither country could afford any more warring on the other, this was a costly expense. True we killed innocent people, but if we didn't more would have died at the hands of the Japanese and of the Americans. The bombs not only made sense, they saved lives. Despite taking some.
Posted by: AnonymousNeeded to stop evil
Of course it was justified. We got attacked, their country was supporting unjustified war, and simply experienced the consequences of perpetuating an unjust war. They sought to take over the world and propped up a genocidal, horribly despicable country named Germany.
That the war was dragging on and more lives would have probably been lost if not for the bombing, is relevant but somewhat beside the point. They were attacking us, seeking to perpetuate global evil, and we ultimately had a right to defend ourselves and fight back. We did what was necessary to stop a horrible evil and it's sad that that proved necessary, but it was.
What I think was NOT just was the internment of Japanese Americans in prison camps, that was NOT justified. However, the bombing was.Posted by: JzyehoshuaThe Japanese Were NOT About To Surrender
'We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.’ (The Age of Hirohito: In Search of Modern Japan by Daikichi Irokawa) Does that sound like they were about to surrender? I don't think so.
I've also seen arguments exclaiming, pleading for us to examine this from the perspective of the Japanese. I admit now that I have not done that, but what I HAVE done, however, is examine this from the point of the Chinese. Those who think that the Japanese men had to watch their wives die a quick, painless death...don't you think the Chinese men who were forced to watch their wives and children get raped, then stabbed before getting kill themselves - don't you think that the Japanese men got the better end of the bargain?
And do not forget, these 'innocent' citizens killed and harmed during the bomb were spending their entire day learning how to kill their enemy. Classes were replaced with drills, work replaced with mock battles - if Hiroshima had not been bombed, it would have turned into the military base Americans so feared, and then it would have been too late.
Another thing: in dropping the Atomic bomb, thousands of lives were saved. The only other alternative Americans had at that time was to launch an all-out invasion, and that would have costed tens of thousands of lives, since the Japanese aren't exactly know for their cowardly ways.Posted by: zagirThe bomb was justified.
The US was justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because that action ended the war. The Battle for Okinawa represented the Japanese attitude of fighting to the last man. Invading the main Japanese islands would have cost millions of lives. World War II Japan can not be judged by today's standards. In World War II Japan it was socially acceptable for the Japanese to invade Nanking, China and kill all the men and turn the women into sex slaves for Japanese soldiers.
Posted by: AnonymousYes it was justified because they were warned.
I have one simple argument if the bomb was not dropped a land invasion was planned for the 1st of November 1945, which would have cost the U.S. 1 million troops, and the Japanese 3 to 4 million troops civilians ect... all Japanesse were ordered to fight to the death.
Posted by: AnonymousJapanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were gravely warned to leave the city days prior to the A-bombings.
The U.S. had dropped leaflets on two cities a few days prior to the A-bombings of Hiroshima warning civilians of air raids within a few days and advised them to leave the city immediately. They did not leave so you chose to put yourself and your families at risk of bombs being dropped on your head. If you don't believe me, then Google "America warned Hiroshima".
And Pickle, Japanese planes also shot American civilians at Pearl Harbor and killed directly over 68 so it's not just soldiers and marines. Not to mention the attack on Pearl Harbor was done without a declaration of war and without a warning so it's not acceptable by any means to kill non-war people (soldiers and civilians) out of nowhere, thus placing Japan in violation of peace.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had tens of thousands Japanese soldiers, plus both cities had military / industrial installations and were protected by anti-aircraft defense batteries in case if hundreds of B-29s would come in to firebomb their city. It's also the Japanese fault that they placed military /industrial installations in middle of the civilian-populated areas and "innocent" people you called them were working in factories and workships producing weapons of war and last time according to the 1907 Hague Convention, civilians working in factories and workshops engaging in production of war supplies were legitimate targets.Posted by: AnonymousIt was payback time for Japan.
The U.S. was definitely justified in dropping the atomic bomb, because Japan killed a lot of people in the attack on Pearl Harbor. I think that was totally uncalled for for them to bomb us. They learned their lesson in fighting us and they learned for future reference not to attack us or fight with us again.
Posted by: AnonymousSadly, it was justified.
Reasoning:
- Japan were duly warned to surrender or face "prompt" and "utter" destruction
- The Japanese were willing to sacrifice every man, woman and child to further the bent of their nefarious, demigod- like emperor
- Fundamentalism cannot be bargained with, as can be evidence even today
- The choice of accomplishing the same ends with a ground invasion would have only resulted in a protracted, bloody conflict with MORE deaths, but to BOTH sides
- The second bomb was arguably surplus, but the obstinate nature of the fascist Japanese coupled with the urgency to end the war, conspired to force Allied hands
- The wartime atrocities the Japanese imperialists committed, esp. against the Chinese and P.O.W.s, is arguably graver than what the Nazis have historically be lumped with
The sacrifice of civilian lives in war is always tragic. But, if these civilians are inculcated similarly to those that ferment the violence, they have, through their ingrained mind sets, already committed themselves in the conflict.Posted by: AnonymousBombs were Necessary
One reason why dropping the bombs was a good idea is, now people know destructive these bombs are. These bombs caused the complete devastation of the two cities and caused lots of sickness from the aftereffects. The bombs combined killed 150,000 people instantly and eventually killed 100,000 more people due to the radiation sickness. This might all seem awful and it really is, but it gives people an idea of how horrific these bombs were. Now if a war like this ever happens again, then countries would second guess their decision to use nuclear weapons, especially since they can do damage thousands of times more than what happened in WWII.
The atomic bombs also put an end to the most violent and destructive war in the history of the world. Japan did not surrender right away and some people in the country wanted to continue fighting. If the bombs were not dropped by the United States, the war might have been elongated and the United States might have had to send troops into Japan. This possibly could have caused more deaths then the bombs did. In the end, dropping the bombs was a good idea because it prevented any type of worse outcome happening during World War II. Also it could prevent future wars from using nuclear warfare.Posted by: AnonymousYes
The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender.
With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.
An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Japan was duly warned to surrender or face "prompt" and "utter" destruction - The Japanese were willing to sacrifice every man, woman and child to further the bent of their nefarious, demigod- like emperor - Fundamentalism cannot be bargained with, as can be evidence even today - The choice of accomplishing the same ends with a ground invasion would have only resulted in a protracted, bloody conflict with MORE deaths, but to BOTH sides.Posted by: AnonymousTotal war concept
If you are in war, you are in it to win it and must use any force necessary to protect your vested interest in your State and grasp peace. A State's aim should be for peace and the protection of your people. Once the decision has been made to protect a State's sovereignty, this aim must be pursued with the fanaticism of a starving man in pursuit of a morsel of food.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Japanese need to experience the horrors they've done to others.
The Japanese in Korea brutally killed and tortured many Koreans. They made young Koreans into prostitutes and frequently raped women. In China, they killed and chopped off the heads of many Chinese men with no apparent reason. The Japanese massacred and raped many in the Rape of Nanjing. In short, the Japanese need to be taught a lesson on how to be humane to other races.
Posted by: AnonymousKarma
The Japanese learn about the real-world Karma of their murderous and vicious crimes committed all around the earth and upon innocent people of many races. Let's not lose the perspective that much more children and women died at Japanese hands before the bombs were dropped; and much more will die if the bombs were not dropped.
Posted by: AnonymousThey made it personal. They attacked us first.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor when we had done nothing to provoke them, there were also innocent children in Pearl Harbor and it is an eye for an eye. Besides, it is not like the people who died from the explosion weren't warned a luxury we were not given. The US was completely justified.
Posted by: AnonymousJapan was warned.
The Japenese were warned by the Americans and although we didnt say anything about an atomic bomb, it was warned that there would be complete and utter destruction. USA sent an ultimatum clearly stating this, but it was promptly rejected. Then the US continued its warning by dropping leaflets from the sky warning the Japanese that they would reek havoc on their city and even listed other cities. They advised civilians to leave the city at once. Therefore, the US was justified to drop the bomb on Hiroshima.
Posted by: AnonymousIt wasn't because American soldier had died, but because how many more would die in a conventional assault on the main island.
Please allow me to first state clearly that the death of even one child, one innocent civilian, even one soldier who was pressed into service against his will is one death too many. The hundreds of thousands of dead as a result of these two bombs has a horrific tragedy. However, there are some things you must keep in mind.1)we didn't ask for war with Japan, they brought it to us by invading our naval base. Since Japan "started I?" Japan is responsible for whatever consequence their people suffered as a result. 2) the idea of a D-day-style assault with water - and airborne conventional troops was carefully examined and preferred by many, specifically because of the lower risk to innocent civilians. It was determined that over 1 million us troops, minimum, would be lost in such an attempt and the entire assault was likely to fail, extending the length of the war and increasing the death toll on both sides. Had the us not dropped the bomb, far more Japanese innocent citizens would have died horrible deaths than did. Had the us not dropped the bomb, far more us innocent citizens would have died than did. Had the us not dropped the bomb, far more Japanese soldiers would have died than did. Had the us not dropped the bomb, far more us soldiers would have died than did. How in the world can anyone morally support killing millions of us soldiers and extending a war resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians on both sides, and then use as the basis of this opinion the fact that, compared to the alternative, relatively few people died.
Posted by: AnonymousPOW's and KIA's
My great grandfather, John Mims is a survivor of the Bataan Death March. The Japanese tortured him for 3 years: they pulled all his finger nails off, starved him (he only had rats to eat) and made him walk 70 miles with no food & water. Personally they deserved it.
Posted by: AnonymousAlternative
Some say that the Japanese army and at home moral were low, merely a few months prior the the dropping of the atomic bombs, Hitler launched the largest land offensive seen on the Western front during WWII, Operation Barbarossa. The resulting Battle of the Bulge served no purpose but to delay the final defeat of Germany for a short time. Yet it cost thousands of both German and Allied lives. The USA certainly did not wish to have a similar situation with Japan. The alternative to dropping the bombs was Operation Downfall, a massive amphibious assault that would make D-Day look like child's play. During the ensuing battle and fight for mainland Japan, it is estimated that millions of people would die, the Japanese civilians were fanatically loyal to their Emperor and would fight to the death. Another point to remember is the racial hatred that emanated between the Japanese and Americans, terrible atrocities were committed by both sides during the war and there is not denying that fact. During the 1940s virtually every power in Europe as well as the United States were attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. Do you honestly believe that if the Soviets had succeeded first they wouldn't have dropped one on Berlin? The USA felt that as both wars were ending the USSR and they themselves would be vying power and it was necessary to show what they could do. Was dropping the atomic bomb right? No. Was it the best choice available during the time? Yes. I feel that it is silly for people today to speculate and say that what they did was wrong. You were not they, you don't know what they were feeling. Also the past is the past, it will not be changed.
Posted by: AnonymousMore people would have been killed if the war carried on
Japan had already killed 2000 Americans, and the bomb killed two cities in Japan. If the war had carried don without the bomb more people would have died from both sides. Meaning it was best for both countries. People described it as 'an image of hell' but if more people died more people would have emotional shock, from their losses.
Posted by: AnonymousLives Lost and More
The estimates for the lives that would be lost far exceeded that of not dropping the bomb had the US invaded the mainland the dead count would have exceeded one million lives and the Japanese would have lost far more. The Japanese would have most likely used civilians to defend the cities along with the troopers. The loss of civilian life is trivial. Weather you think it was justified or not it happened and worked.
Posted by: AnonymousThey were justified to drop the bombs on Japan.
I think that we were justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan because if we didn't I do not think that Japan would have given up. If we didn't drop them then more American lives would have been lost. If we can do something to stop a war and possibly a future war with a country then why would we not use it. People will argue that it killed a lot of innocent people but in my opinion it was all worth it to save American lives.
Posted by: AnonymousIt quickly ended the war
After the battle or Okinawa, the world saw that Japan would fight until they could not possible fight anymore. This proves that Japan would be hard pressed to agree to "unconditional surrender." At the end of WWII, with roughly 65 million people killed, the world needed the fighting to stop. If Japan were to continue fighting, they would have added to the death toll, and continued the world's most gruesome war for another 6-9 months. Dropping the bomb was the logical answer to ending a 6 year long war. Furthermore, dropping the bomb was America's way of deterring the other world powers, namely Stalin, from ever going to war with the United States without risk of retaliation
Posted by: bethanexSaved American's lives
It saved American lives, they dropped the bomb because Japan wouldn't surrender/give up. They saved over 1 million American soldier's lives, so in my perspective, I could see why they dropped the bomb in the first place, this made them surrender (the bomb on Hiroshima didn't make them surrender so they did another on Nagasaki which did do its job.)
Posted by: AnonymousUS was justified.
Dropping the bomb on the two Japanese cities were justified, because the Japanese refused all warnings given by the Allies to end the war. In order to finish the war quickly, US had to resort to the last means of using the atomic bomb.
In other words, the Japanese themselves led to the destruction of the two cities by not following the requests of the Allies. The dropping of the atomic bomb was beneficial for Korea in that it helped the Koreans gain independence from 36 years of occupation by Japan.Posted by: AnonymousIt was justified dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Because Japan already killed 2,000 people in the pearl harbor bombing. We moved to take out Japan, by defeating the Japanese on several islands, because of there kamikazes, we took heavy casualties and Japan lost far less man than America did. Dropping the atomic bomb saved the American life, and crippled the Japanese from attacking the us.
Posted by: AnonymousIt was justified.
Yes, even though the atomic bomb killed thousands of innocent Japanese civilians ~300,000 in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the number of troops in both Japanese and Americans, was estimate to be killed was more. The war was predicted to continue if the U.S didn't drop the atomic bomb, which soon will cause hundreds of thousands of people (in general) will die. Talk about innocent, "Bataan death march" "Burma Railway", etc showed how inhumanity the Janpanese were. Even though, the U.S did not predict how much the atomic bomb was going to cause, but they still have the idea of what will happen if they drop the bomb. Because if they know the bomb is going to stop the war, they must have the idea of how dangerous the bomb is.
As some of us might know, the Japanese soldiers were very loyal. They would drive their stupid airplanes straight to the ships and suicide like the Nine Eleven. They would rather die than surrender.
Also, politically, the Soviet Union was going to involve if the war will not end soon, which doesn't favor the U.S much. The Soviet going to spread Communist across Asia.
I get the idea of innocent people were being killed instead of the Japanese soldiers/gov. But if American troops die, thousands of American women will heartbreak, children will have no father (hungry), elders will heart attack as well. This caused innocent civilians to be effected by the war as well (but not much). It sounds stupid, but it actually makes sense.Posted by: AnonymousWar justifies it.
If you just think of it, Japan was not going to give up. OUR MEN were being killed. In war, would you rather have your own sides well-being kept safe, or that of the enemy? It is sad, but all war is sad. As far as the way we treated their POWs, we kept them safe and fed them. On the other hand, they tortured and killed the U.S. soldiers. If they just realized they weren't going to win, the bombs would not have been dropped.
Posted by: AnonymousProtect American Lives
The U.S' decision was justified because the U.S' goal at that time was to protect American lives and end the war as quickly as possible. If invading Japan was ever a choice, The U.S would still pick the atomic bombs. Why? Because invading Japan wastes time and it risks many American soldiers. Many soldiers died during the WW II and the U.S can't risk any more of them. Again, the goal was to 'Protect American lives and end the war.'
Posted by: AnonymousYes the US was justified
in dropping the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski. I'm not sure many people know this but the Japanese killed well over 12 million Chinese during World War II. The number is somewhere between 12 - 19 million. So at the most deaths it would be more then the Holocaust. The Japanese did this, and not many people know that they did. I say I would have dropped the bombs surrender or not. It's war, war isn't fair. They bombed Pearl Harbor, they screwed themselves.
Posted by: AnonymousEnded a long and very deadly war.
I think the U.S. needed retribution for Pearl Harbor and also needed to show the world who`s the boss. It definitely worked, and we all knew then who the most powerful country in the world was and the consequences off challenging that position. The loss of life was inconsequential, compared to millions to already die on all sides.
Posted by: TheLoveGuy94Lives of us
We saved millions of lives not just Americans by dropping two bombs on cities that could deal with losses. It's not like it would've mattered if we dropped the bomb we saved a ton of lives. So what if Hiroshima lost hundreds we saved millions!! Lives are important it's better to save then lose.
Posted by: AnonymousDeath among US troops
US troops and other UN soldier on allied side was going to lose hundred thousands of troops. 300.000 vs millions of US and Allied forces. What would you choose? We have to save our people's lives not others. Both side was expected to lose millions of death if we weren't going to end it. Also Emperor Hirohito was still trying to fight against Allied forces. Emperor had to step down because of other Japanese military leaders and surrender. If we didn't drop it, the war might have went on for months. Therefore, it was very necessary to save our troops and people from getting hurt
Posted by: happymisoJapan
While innocent people died in Japan, the members of Japanese militia and US Army and Navy would have suffered losses up to 10 times that of what was killed. This promotes Utilitarianism as well as morality. Saving lives and the intent of saving lives in moral which was the end result of this decision. Happiness was maximized in that more people and their families lives were spared
Posted by: AnonymousThey warned them and it was for less death
They warned Japan to surrender otherwise they would be destroyed and when the Japanese ignored this they unleashed its power on the city. This was also for less war and death to occur. It's like poker; when you bluff to scare them there is risk if it doesn't work but if it does your losses are cut.
Posted by: AnonymousOf course it was the right thing to do.
The atomic bombs dropped on the two cities had casualties in the 250,000's, but if the two bombs hadn't been dropped, the losses from what would have resulted would have been in the millions. If necessary, kill a few to save many. The bombing of Japan was far beyond justified.
Posted by: AnonymousMost certainly
The atomic bombs most certainly saved hundredsof thousands, if not millions of Japanese lives, and hundred thousands of U.S. soldiers lives. An invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath, something along the lines of voluntary genocide
Posted by: AnonymousThey attacked Pearl Harbor.
They (the Japanese) would have killed everybody if they kept going and because they ended up surrendering the war ended. Which was good for everyone, not just Japan and the United States. If they had kept going many more people would have ended up dying and the consequences would have been even worse.
Posted by: AnonymousThey were justified in doing so
Invading Japan would've killed many more lives on both sides. Plus Japan at the time was refusing to surrender despite us pressure. Even after the us softened the surrender terms Japan refused to surrender
Posted by: Anonymousyes, we were justified
japan attacked us first. they drew "first blood"
Posted by: AnonymousThe U.S. was justified in its attack on Hiroshima.
The U.S. was justified because they needed an unconditional surrender from Japan. Japan was a very volatile opponent and they used unconventional and questionable tactics against the U.S. For example, Japan used Kamikazes (suicide bombers) against U.S. Naval vessels, killing themselves just for a chance to take out a few Americans. Granted, the attack on Hiroshima was very extreme and caused much more devastation, but it was a necessary measure to end the war.
Posted by: AnonymousThe U.S. Was completely justified.
I'm not going to repeat any of the points made here, just one I haven't seen yet: Before Truman dropped the atom bomb, he asked his Generals to configure an invasion plan for Japan. His Generals did as he commanded and the result was staggering. The invasion would need about three million troops and that the casualty rates were estimated to be 500,000 casualties every 6 months. Most of the U.S. High Command believed that the an invasion of japan would take more than 6 months and would amount to at least 1,200,000 casualties for american lives. This was because the rugged terrain of japan made it predictable of where U.S. Forces would land, and the hostile population of japan amounted to about 28,000,000 people. These were fanaticised Japanese citizens who were expected to fight the Americans because of their theology.
Posted by: AnonymousAtomic Bomb Dropping on Japan
-it would end the war successfully at the earliest possible moment
-it justified the effort and expense of building the atomic bombs
-it offered hope of achieving diplomatic gains in the growing rivalry with the Soviet Union
-there were a lack of incentives not to use the weapons
-because of America's hatred of the Japanese and a desire for vengeancePosted by: AnonymousIf we didn't
If we did not drop the two bombs America and the allies would have suffered the loss of more lives and had to spend a lot more money also. America was justified in doing so, they saved money, life's and years at war. If America would not have dropped the bomb it would have been a possibility that we could have lost more money lives and spent more time at war.
Posted by: AnonymousSaved american lives
By bombing them which was also payback for pearl harbour also saved american lives due to the fact that if they tried to invade hundreds of thousands of americans would have died in the process bombing seemed to be the only option so they took it not saying it was a good thing just was what needed to happen
Posted by: Eldridge_HaIt was justified.
I believe that it was a decent idea, but it did have some flaws. Like killing thousands of innocents and wasting two atomic bombs. But it did end the war and it did show that the United States meant what they said when we warned them that we were going to bomb them.
Posted by: AnonymousThe atomic bomb I s justified
The atomic bomb is justified as it has saved many lives but has also made a massive impact in our history. I mean have you ever heard of another war taking place with the Japanese. No, this is because they have learnt their lesson and for once are thinking of the wellbeing, safety and future of Japan.
Posted by: JessicaCullenJapanese culture worried us
We had 2 choices. Drop a bomb or invade the islands. We were worried that if we tried an invasion, all the Japanese, soldiers and civilians alike, would contribute to the fight or commit suicide. The Japanese had so much honor and loyalty, we were worried that we would need a massive army invasion and also that army may have to kill nearly everyone on the islands to beat them. That would have massive casualties on both sides
Posted by: AnonymousSaved our fighting forces, and ended the war faster
The dropping of the atomic bomb helped us to save many American lives so they could come back home and be with their families. The alternatives for this situation are land invasion killing millions of people on each side, or bombing which would have destroyed much more than just two cities.
Posted by: AnonymousIt saved deaths!
In the dropping of the bombs only one or two thousand Japanese people died. However if the Americans wouldn't have dropped these two atomic bombs a full scale invasion of Japan would have lost about 800,000 lives on the way to Tokyo and then approximately another 500,000 to take it over, and that is just American deaths. It has been predicted that Japan would have lost around two million men.
As the old saying goes 'You've gotta lose lives to save lives'
thank you
@JoshM67Posted by: AnonymousWar is hell.
The argument against the bomb can be used for every new weapon. The Atomic bomb killed fewer that did our bombing of Dresden Germany.
Hitler, Stalin and many others have killed millions using conventional weapons. A much higher percentage of the population in several counties are being killed now with knives and other conventional weapons.
It is the killing not the method that counts.Posted by: AnonymousThe u.s was justified in dropping the atomic bomb
The bomb reduced the number of us casualties by ending the war early. It also send a strong message to Russia to not mess with us. We got " payback" for Pearl Harbor and the rape of neing king. I think the u.S was justified in the bombing of Japan.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, the U.S. did the right thing in bombing Japan!
Douglass MacArthur even said that by 1946 1,000,000 American troops would die. The bomb helped the war come to an end and show that the U.S. was very powerful. Many innocent lives were lost but it is war and unfortunately that is just how it goes. This was a powerful weapon and should hopefully never need to be used again.
Posted by: AnonymousWe warned the Japanese before bombing them.
Harry S. Truman had warned the Japanese that if they didn't surrender they would face utter destruction. This warning was called the Potsdam Declaration. The Japanese did not take the warning seriously, which is their own fault. Other than the declaration, the U.S. also warned Japan by dropping 5 million fliers onto the targeted cities, which read that all must evacuate the city, for there was a bomb heading for them. Once again, Japan did not take it seriously
Posted by: AnonymousImperial Japan was Asia's Nazi Germany
Imperial Japan was Asia's Nazi Germany. No one is arguing that in war there won't be bloodshed, but Japan systematically committed crimes against humanity. This wasn't just a few rogue soldiers who engaged in some of the most horrendous, inhuman acts of torture and butchery. The rape of Nanjing is just one of many examples. Just as Nazi Germany wanted to crush Europe under its reign of terror, Japan wanted the same. I'm a first-generation Vietnamese-Canadian, so really, the argument that the bomb was an act of retaliation because of America's wounded ego doesn't hold true - at least not for me. This was not about retaliation as much as it was about STOPPING the brutal war machine that was Imperial Japan. Do I wish the we could've stopped Japan through diplomacy or some other measure that didn't involve the atombic bomb? Of course. But I would honestly hate to think how much worse off Asia would've been if Japan had continued its murderous occupation. Truman made the best decision he could've made given the facts he had.
Posted by: AnonymousIt was time for revenge.
The USA is one of the strongest countries ever. If you go into the forest you dont find the biggest creature and wake it up. They woke up the United States aka a sleeping giant. Japan should be lucky that the USA did not go farther and bomb all their other towns and cities. America made the right choice and should not have to argue if it was justified or not. America is and always will be the strongest country ever.
Posted by: lmududeSo it goes
Yes we were. The Japanese were very extreme. They showed little signs of giving up, and this was re affirmed by their morals and culture in their country. Furthermore, an actual invasion of the main land of Japan (the original plan) would have cost an even bigger amount of American (and Japanese) casualties.
Posted by: AnonymousThe dropping was most definitely justified because of the amount of people it had saved on both sides.
The amount of US lives that would have been lost is probably exaggerated, but still, countless lives would have been lost on both sides. The bomb had prevented any more American lives from dying because of invasion and the it also prevented more Japanese people from trying to sacrifice their lives for their Emperor. Although the bomb had killed many Japanese, it had also killed the Japanese people's will to fight, therefore preventing more deaths. I'm not a great writer, but I hope you understand this point.
Posted by: AnonymousMany died, but more would have if we hadn't dropped them.
A Tough Decision
A blinding flash of light and more than 70,000 people instantly dead. This is referring to the first ever atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima. This remains to be one of the single most devastating acts of war in history, but was it necessary? This question has been debated among many since the day it occurred. Most, including myself, have come to the conclusion that it was indeed crucial that we use the atomic bomb to end the war in Japan.
Let me start off by stating that roughly 200,000 people were killed by the dropping of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man”, either immediately or over a period of up to 3 months from radiation sickness. Regardless of the severe number of casualties, the only way to stop the Japanese from fighting and receive an unconditional surrender was to do something drastic. It is ingrained in the Japanese culture to fight to the death or commit suicide if captured. In the end, dropping the bombs saved both American and Japanese lives. We would have had to keep fighting and killing on the Japanese mainland resulting in numerous soldier and civilian deaths. The Japanese military leaders were prepared to fight indefinitely, and only the prospect of the entire annihilation of their country stopped them.
Churchill predicted that a million American lives and a half a million British soldiers would die if we invaded the Japanese mainland based on the resistance that they encountered in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. After discussions between President Truman and Prime Minister Churchill, they weighed the consequences of projected Allied and Japanese casualties and decided to use the new atomic weapon. Harry S. Truman warned the Japanese that if they didn't surrender they would face destruction. Other than the declaration, the U.S. also warned Japan by dropping 5 million fliers onto the targeted city, which read that all must evacuate the city, and that there was a bomb heading for them. Japan did not take it seriously and its leaders said that we didn’t have the capability to do such a thing. They believed it to be a bluff so Truman made the call to drop the first bomb on Hiroshima. After the fallout of that bomb, Truman sent further warning stating that we had another bomb and would use it. Again Japanese leaders refused to surrender so we dropped our second one on Nagasaki.
So in summary, many things can justify our dropping of the atomic bomb. Due to their culture, the Japanese wouldn't have stopped fighting if we hadn't dropped the bombs. Dropping the bombs killed less Japanese and Americans then if we had kept fighting and we gave them the opportunity to surrender before dropping each bomb. Finally all this resulted in the unconditional surrender of the Japanese. Overall, during a war people die. That war ends when one side decides they have lost enough lives. This point was just reached faster for the Japanese by us dropping the bombs.
BAM!Posted by: AnonymousUs or them
The soviet union, Germany, and Japan were all in a race to build the atomic bomb. The us chanced upon the German designs while taking Germany. It was a race to who could build the bomb first. Had Japan finished the bomb first, I highly doubt there would be a us to talk about. If you would rather move to a war torn country where the "conventional?" Fighting is on your front door step, then be my guest. Millions would have died if the war continued dragging on. Go hug a tree
Posted by: AnonymousIt didn't have to be this way.
Japan was already losing the war, even one of its admirals told the higher ups not to start a war with the United states. Japan was also peeved off at both the U.S. And Britain. The U.S. Was expecting some sort of retaliation to their tariffs against Japanese goods, so why surprise attack them. A smarter strategic choice would have been to surprise attack Great Britain. Britain at the time was more focused on Germany and would not have seen the surprise attack coming, this might have turned the tables on the war of Japan was able to weaken the British Royal Air Force. Attacking the U.S. In hopes that the people will be so shocked and accept Japanese forced colonies in China was far-fetched and unlike Japan. The hopes that people will forget how bad that ended with Hitler and his new colonies was ridiculous. Also, the death toll for the next year of war that was predicted would have been about 1 million in American forces alone. Much higher than the estimated 500,000 people that were killed in total of both atomic bombs 1 year after they were deployed. Japan also had the choice to surrender before getting more involved, but the humiliation and their pride did not allow them to. It is quite possible that had Japan surrendered peacefully, the atomic bomb would not have been invented for a few more years, sparing countless deaths.
Posted by: AnonymousThey were 100% justified
Japan refused to stop the war. They were going to fight until every last soldier died. If they did not drop the bomb, even more lives would have been lost. They had used every means they could think of before they decided on the atomic bombs but as a last resource it did exactly what they needed it to do, stop the war.
Posted by: Anonymousi think it was a good idea
I think it was a good idea because it ended World War II . Imagine how horrible it could of been if WWII was elongated ?? At least 2,500 people died during pearl harbor and 50-70 million people died during the war... If that bomb wasn't dropped this would have been way higher. Besides, they bombed us first. If they didn't bomb pearl harbor we wouldn't have gone into war. The atomic bomb wouldn't have been necessary. I know it was inhumane but, but in a way they had no choice ! They wanted it to end so boom... There ! The bomb was dropped and WWII ended.
Posted by: AnonymousDon't forget Pearl Harbor
Yes, America was justified. We were at war. Everything is fair in love and war. 'If someone hit you, you hit them back; harder'. Japan hit us, we hit them back. Remember that America was going to stay out of the war. It was Japan that attacked first, bombing Pearl Harbor and all. We retaliated as anyone would. We had been hit at home, without having provoked the other side, and many of our soldiers died. Our blood burned with the need for vengence. So we fought. Over and over again. The bomb was a way to end things quickly and to make sure we won while doing so. We warned them both times. Surrender, or face our wrath. Both times, Japan refused to lay down arms. The man who invented the Atomic Bomb probably regretted it for the rest of his life. Killing people is never justifiable, however, if Japan is going to do so anyway, than why should we hold back? None of us is in the right.
Posted by: Shadowheart26This was a good idea. So was not giving the Japanese a specific warning.
If Japan was given a date and place of the bombings, they could have evacuated the cites. Not only that, the Japanese could have taken all of the American prisoners of war to those places. We did not want to invade Japan, and we certainly do not like killing our own people.
Posted by: AnonymousDropping the atomic bombs saved more life than it took.
Japan at the time was desperate and were not willing to surrender even though they were protecting a lost cause. They were ready to send civilians out if they had to and they were so entrenched in there main land that invading would have taken millions of lives on the U.S side and on the Japanese side. Many more civilians would have been killed in the cross fire than the bombing it self.The Japenese were not going to stop even when we warned them about what we were going to do. We even gave them a chance but they still refused to listen. In the end it has a hard decision but a right decision none the less and hopefully nuclear weapons will never be used again.
Posted by: Michael55Yes, it was correct for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The U.S. Was justified in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because it was the only way to end war with Japan. The U.S. Needed a way to tell Japan that we no longer want to be messed with. We wanted the fighting to end. If the war had continued, then more soldiers would of died.
Since dropping the bomb, more countries see us as a threat, knowing that we have the brains to build an atomic bomb, and they know what an atomic bomb would do.Posted by: koshfoster2Sadly it saved lives
The people of Japan were never going to give up through conventional warfare. Yes they were beat and the U.S. would have won the war without the bombs. However, many more Japanese citizens would have died in the invasion of Japan along with millions or our own troops.
Posted by: AnonymousYes it was justified because Japan started the attack
The Japaneses made a surprise attack on Pearl Habour, they didn't have the courage to even declare an attack or battle and warn the United States. Also the two bombs were dropped as payback for what the Japanese pulled at Pearl Habour. Also keep in mind that the whole country was at war, not just the government or army.
Posted by: AnonymousU.S was justified.
Even though the actions were horrific and brutal, our argument is not the fact whether it was right or not but whether it was justified or not. Abomination of any nation is wrong and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no different; however the U.S's actions were justified because U.S gave Japan a great deal of warning before attacking through several letters and the Potsdam Declaration; the bombing shouldn't have been a surprise to Japan. The bombing was vital from the U.S stance because if U.S would've waged war, 1 million lives would have been lost, so Truman's ultimate goal was to end the war as quickly and as soon as possible. It has been widely known that U.S became a dominant world power and in this case the only way to maintain their dominance and power through out the world was with a weak Japan; bombing Japan seemed vital and ideal. The U.S used every diverse weapon to win the war with Germany and Japan and the using of the atomic bomb is the using of just another weapon necessary to bring home victory for the United Sates.
Posted by: AnonymousThe bomb query.
Though risky, the United States made the right decision to drop “Little Boy” on the city of Hiroshima in Japan. I think this because It started the beginning of the end of WWII. If we hadn't dropped the bomb, the war would have gone on for 5-10 more years (some experts predict) but no one will know for sure. If we hadn’t dropped the bomb, the world would be completely different. The U.S. dropped this bomb to show people the power that they have. It made other countries look at us as powerful. Another reason it was a good idea is because by bombing Japan, even though we killed 100,000 people, we did also save a lot of lives. Japan could have beaten us to the bomb and used it on us first. We could’ve been killed instead. Japan made the first move on us. They killed many of our soldiers by dropping surprise bombs on us and sinking our battle ships. They killed men who were fighting for our lives. These are some reasons why I think we made the right decision by dropping the bomb on Japan.
Posted by: AnonymousThey had to stop World War 2
I think that they were justified in dropping the first one but I think that there was no reason to drop the second one three days later. They had no choice but to drop the first one. If they hadn't have dropped it then the second world war would have continued and more lives would have been lost, it had to stop.
Posted by: AnonymousThe United States was Justified
After the surrender of Germany, the United States was faced with the problem of ending the conflict with Japan. The most efficient way to end the war between the allies and Japan was to use the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb was created July 16th, 1945 by American Scientists under the Manhattan project. The allies offered Japan the Potsdamn Declaration prior to the dropping of the atomic bomb. After the refusal to sign the treaty, the United States approved the use of the atomic bomb on four Japanese cities, Hiroshima being the primary target.. On August 2nd, 1945 the first atomic bomb hit the city of Hiroshima and three days later a second bomb, labeled the fat boy, the trading ports of Nagasaki. The United States was justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it saved thousands of American lives, saved millions of dollars on supplies, and quickly ended the war.
Posted by: AnonymousJapan Is Lucky
If japan had the same opportunity to do to us what we did to them back in 1945, We wouldn't have gotten a warning like the U.S. gave them. Plus, at least after the war the U.S. went into Japan and helped it rebuild and go back to non-war living. Japan would have never done that for us, they would have tried to take us over completely. It is justified, because if you think about it, had it been any other country that japan was attacking like that, that had the capabilities to do the sort of damage we did, those other countries wouldn't have stopped at two cities, those other countries wouldn't have stopped at "Wareware wa gōbuku"(we surrender). Japan would be nothing but a glowing island of Radiation if it was any other country with the U.S.' capabilities. Japan is lucky it is still a damn country after what they did to us in WWII. So yes, it is justified. It doesn't matter there war strategy, or how many people were actually fighting, or how many innocent people died. Like i said before, any other country wouldn't even warn them, or care about civilians anyway. Its Japan's old governments fault for not caring about their own people even after the first bomb. If you don't think it is justified, fine, But Japan is still pretty damn lucky it was the U.S. and not Russia's head they were throwing paper airplanes at. Russia would have thrown something alot heavier then two metal balls and a letter saying they don't want to throw these metal balls. It would be more like a gun shot to the head because Japan was messing up Russia's hair.
Posted by: GeekiTheGreatYes it was horrible. however I believe it abruptly stopped a war and brought
Renewed economic success to the Japanese people. Otherwise the war would have drug on for years and caused the economic weakness of both nations with probable famine and shortages occurring in both countries as well as the loss of life and increased hate between two nations. That's hind sight. During that time I would have thought, Do I want to be under Japanese rule? No? Then drop the bomb."
Posted by: AnonymousMillions would have died
Japan was stubborn. They where refusing to surrender. America would have been forced to invade Japan. In the first battle alone an estimated 1,000 Americans and Japanese would have died per hour. It also ended the war. Millions of Japanese were willing to blow themselves up to destroy American tanks. Over all millions upon millions of people would have died.
Posted by: AnonymousPresident Truman saved more lives by deciding to drop the a-bomb than if he had not.
The estimated deaths, had America attacked the Japanese, was over one million soldiers. 70,000 people were killed in the initial blast of Hiroshima and even more after the 'radiation plague' started to affect people. But this is more than 100,000 as oppose to 1 million people. Truman, as president of the United States, who had been at war for 5 years, had one main goal: to protect American lives. He saved countless lives by dropping the A-bomb.
Also, there was no way to avoid the fight, had the atomic bomb not been dropped. At Iwo Jima, the Japanese knew that the island was lost, yet fought for every last piece of land. They were basically a suicide squadron, who's only mission was to take as many American lives with them as possible. It went against all Japanese culture and nature to surrender. The Americans, after having witnessed the Japanese fight to viciously and bravely, were in their right to believe that the Japanese would never give up, and that to attack the Japans, their homeland, would not be a battle but a slaughter.Posted by: AnonymousSaved many American lives.
It was estimated a war without the two atomic bombs would have cost approximately 500,000 American lives. The two atomic bombs only killed about 199,000 Japanese lives. Therefore the bombs saved many innocent people lives, Japanese and American citizens included. It also saved a lot of money the United Stated would of had to spend on the war.
Posted by: AnonymousDefense, ended it.
The US was at war. An unprovoked war that Japan Started!
We tried to stop it, we gave them clear warning of what would happen if they didn't quit, but they still wouldn't surrender. We dropped number one. They still wouldn't surrender, so 3 days later, we dropped number 2.
We were attacked, we fought back, we warned them, we followed through and bombed them - as promised, and they still wouldn't back down, so we hit them again. Where is there any question? It's all on them, not on us.Posted by: AnonymousThe United States was justified in dropping two atomic bombs over Japan.
-Had to put an end to the most violent war in history before it got any worse.
-Warned Japan, they had plenty of time to get far away from the blast zone.
-Revenge for Pearl Harbor, where the Japanese attacked without any form of warning, let alone a declaration of war.Posted by: AnonymousBombed Military Locations
The two cities were instrumental in the war for Japan. We did not bomb any civilian location or even a civilian city. Hiroshima was a military base with many camps and many civilians were evacuated prior to the bombing. Nagasaki was another military location to receive goods, ships, and so on for being a seaport. These were strategized locations so even if Japan still did not surrender then they would surely be ruined.
Posted by: AnonymousYes because they ended the war!
The U.S only dropped the bomb on Japan because they wanted to end the war and also get back at Japan for destroying pearl harbor. Japan had a chance to surrender and back out but they refused, and the American's had information that Japan were not going to surrender. They felt this was the only way to stop the war.
Posted by: AnonymousWhile the nuclear bombs were a dreadful, murderous invention, they were the lesser of the 2 evils to end World War II.
The atomic bombs claimed thousands of lives, but most experts agree not dropping them would have caused even more deaths in the following conventional warfare. Japan was a proud nation that seemed committed to fighting until the bitter end. Previous land engagements and kamikaze attacks had showed the Japanese resolve to 'dig in' and fight until the death as opposed to surrendering. A conventional landing and invasion of the Japanese homeland would have met even stiffer resistance and bloodshed.
Posted by: jabrelandAmerica Was Justified In Dropping The Bomb On Hiroshima In August 1945
When an atom bomb is dropped, you cannot avoid the killing of civilians. It is a mass destruction weapon and therefore cannot be controlled. The atomic weapon by itself is an immoral weapon, because you cannot avoid the killing of innocent people: in most cases, you kill more innocent people than your enemy – unless you consider everyone on that side as your enemy. So the atom bomb itself, according to that logic, can never, and will never, be justified. But even though the weapon itself is dangerous, we need to consider why it was used. By itself, it may be a dangerous thing, that’s true, but how justified it is depends on the user, and why it was used – am I correct?
Many people think that, all other factors aside, it isn’t okay for militaries to kill non-combatant civilians. Pearl Harbour was, yes, an attack by the Japanese military upon the American military, but it was in response to a series of blockades and provocations, whilst Hiroshima & Nagasaki were deliberate acts of terror by the American military against Japanese civilians. And yes, they may be right – all factors aside. But what people fail to see is that all factors need to be present in order to come to a reasonable conclusion.
What some don’t understand is, though America had destroyed a lot of civilian lives, war is, in the end, a thing that focuses on winning and losing, not the number of lives lost. And, (with all due respect to the civilians that were sacrificed in the process of the war) one must admit that military lives are, in the case of war, more important than the lives of civilians, because they have a bigger contribution to war during a war period.
Many people think Japan was ready to surrender soon anyways. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria. But what they didn’t consider was that Japanese soldiers were trained to never give up according to their warrior code – the Bushido. They worked directly under their emperor, the Kamikaze, and are infinitely loyal to him because they believe that he is actually a God inside a human man. That’s why they have no fear of death.
A lot of debaters arguing in favour of Japan have said that a demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbour would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people, working a bit like a warning shot from a rifle. Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki. But even though 3 days isn’t enough time to do any physical kind of action, isn’t it plenty of time to make a decision between swallowing their pride and shortening the war by surrendering and saving a lot of lives rather than losing many lives?
Of course, the bomb was used partly to justify the 2 billion dollars spent on its development, to test out if 1. The bomb was worth all that money, 2. It worked well and 3. It was possible to further develop the atom bomb and “modernize” it so that it would either cause more or less damage and 4. The exact extent of the weapon was as predicted. But it was built for the purpose of shortening the war, and therefore was mainly used as a method of shortening the war. The testing of the bomb and the 2 billion dollars spent on it were just minor pro’s that were achieved on the way, not the main reason it was used.
The two cities that America bombed weren’t of major military value, that part was true. The civilians living in Hiroshima had outnumbered the troops in the ratio five or six to one. However, it made sense for the Americans to drop bombs on the civilians rather than the militaries. Japan’s military was already weak – but civilians, they had plenty. What better way to diminish the spirit of Japan than killing as many civilian lives as they can? The bombing of Hiroshima was morally incorrect, that’s true. But isn’t everything in war immoral? Since when was fighting right, even if it was for peace?Posted by: BlueydaysAtomic Bomb Dropping
It would end the war successfully at the earliest possible moment. It also offered hope of achieving diplomatic gains in the growing rivalry with the Soviet Union. There was also a lack of incentives not to use the weapons and it justified the effort and expense of building atomic bombs.
Posted by: AnonymousJapan would not surrender.
The Japanese Empire would not give up on the war effort. Civilians were told to fight to the last and never surrender. Regardless of American advancement in the Pacific, the emperor still would not back down. Harry Truman made the decision to end the war abruptly using the bombs, and save millions of lives at the cost of 200,000.
Posted by: AnonymousThe US was justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt was presented with the issue of how to end the war with Japan he had two possibilities. One of the choices that he had to end it was a land invasion of Japan. This strategy was not acceptable for FDR, as he knew the number of lives lost just attacking the islands throughout the Pacific Ocean was to high. He realized that if he were to lead a land invasion on the Japanese mainland, not only would a extremely large amount of American soldiers die, but also an extremely large amount of Japanese soldiers and civilians. The Japanese people were prepared to fight to the death for the protection of their homeland. The Atomic Bomb, the choice that FDR went with, was seen by him the lesser of two evils. Even though two whole cities were wiped out by these technological marvels, the amount of lives lost by the bombs were less then that of a full scale invasion. Yes, I believe that the U.S. Was justified in the usage of the Atomic Bomb on these two cities, as the amount of lives lost were far less then what it could have been.
Posted by: WinklerThis is war, anything goes, and this war needed to end.
Yes the United States was justified in using the atomic bomb. This is because it was a way to end the war quickly with the fewest number if casualties. If the United States had done a land invasion instead it would have caused a high number of casualties on both sides of the conflict. Therefore using these bombs saved hundreds and thousands of lives on both sides.
Furthermore just cause Japan knew they were detected does not mean they were ready to surrender because they were willing to fight to the death for securing their surrender terms, and they were preparing for war. So if the United States did not drop the bomb many Americans and Japanese would have casualties.Posted by: AnonymousGame theory rules
Its easy to say from our computers that they shouldn't have but when the goings got real, you do what you gotta do. It was the most efficient way of bringing an end to the brainwashed Japanese continued attacks a midst utter defeat by germany. Without this attack, the war may have continued for much longer.
Posted by: AnonymousA much needed sadness
During the time of World War 2 there were already so many people who were dead or injured and it was because of the war that many family's were separated and destroyed. The United States went through a financial disaster after the war was finished and it was because of the already dwindling funding and soldiers that the US needed to drop the bombs. Sure, there was a peace treaty on the way, but it would have only stopped the Japanese, what about the Soviet Union and the Germans? We had already lost so many lives and if it hadn't been for the bombs the war would have continued to destroy the world, one nation at a time.
Posted by: AnonymousIt would have been a big mistake to invade Japan.
Japan was preparing for an invasion the whole time and they would never surrender. Just look at the battles on all the islands in the Pacific. Japanese troops preferred to commit suicide rather than surrender. The Japanese were building defenses on the beaches and the whole population was ready to fight.
The Americans were planning two invasions called Operations Olympic and Coronet. The first was the to invade the southern home island of Kyushu and other was to invade the main island of central Honshu. The plan for the invasion of Honshu was to immediately take the capital of Tokyo. Despite the fact that the Japanese had suffered defeat after defeat, the invasion of Japan would be far worse than the Invasion of Normandy in Europe.
The Japanese had been learning to fight longer and harder from what happened at Okinawa. The terrain on Kyushu would have been very difficult for the US troops and vehicles. There was the problem of the rice fields and stone terraces. While the US troops had been doing cave-busting tactics to kill Japanese soldiers, the Japanese had been learning from this and were making planes to further strenghten caves and adapt to American tactics on the home island. Weather was also very unpredictable in Japan. This meant that moving tanks and supplies would be very difficult.
The invasion of Japan would be very long and coslty for any invasion force. The dropping of the atomic bombs offered the best alternative.Posted by: 1HistorygeniusThe End Of The War
It ended the war that could have gone on for so much longer, killing both American and Japanese soldiers. If the Japanese had found it first they would have used it as they didn't want to surrender their Emperor. Of course the mass destruction, death, injuries and radiation is something that had to go alongside with the end of the War. Also Japan were arming their civilians so they too could kill American soldiers. Of course it was devastating but at least it ended the war?
Posted by: AnonymousTo finally end WWII!
President Truman and his advisers as well as the American public were weary of the long war they had fought in the European theater and Japan in the Pacific, a war they had not sought and were drawn into by the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor As the war had ended in Europe surrender of Germany, they feared that they would have to reemploy the same troops that had fought over in Europe to the Pacific theater and plan for an invasion of Japan that had refused to surrender in spite of heavy bombing. The estimated American casualties for that invasion were in the hundreds of thousands at the time. Truman and his advisers choice the nuclear option in order to save American lives and to finally end the war in the Pacific.
Posted by: AnonymousFirst Nation
If we didn't drop the bomb, we wouldn't have become the First Nation to use an atomic weapon. We had the greatest minds working on this, so if we just wasted it blowing it up in an abandoned area, it would have wasted lots of money. Also we wouldn't have ended the war with a boom. Pardon the pun. Totally an accident.
Posted by: AnonymousIt was necessary
Do you realize what the U.S soldiers had to go through to retake every little piece of ground in the Pacific? Now imagine that on the whole Japan nation. Thousands of young american lives lost. Millions of Japanese lives lost because every man, woman and child would have fought until death, that's what they owed to the emperor. Japanese soldiers made people endured unthinkable amount of pain all around the world. They're the ones who started, the U.S gave them what they deserved. If the U.S hadn't used the bomb, the war would have lasted many more years, the soviet union would also have invaded Japan to take ground so there would have been another war between the soviet union and the us like the one that happened in Korea. The bombs killed thousands of people but they saved millions of lives. Japanese, american, russian, australian, british lives.
Posted by: AnonymousThe bomb was Justified
We gave the Japanese warnings and they still did not surrender. They also attacked Pearl Harbor so they had to know we would retaliate. There would have been many more deaths than just the 200,000 that were killed if this war was not ended. The Japanese would have fought till every single one of there people was dead.
Posted by: AnonymousYou cannot sugar-coat war, especially World War II.
When Truman stepped into office, he had big shoes to fill. After Germany surrendered, Japan just would not give up. This was because of their kamikaze culture and extreme opposition to backing down from a fight. If the bomb had not been dropped, the war would have just continued because Japan was too stubborn. Yes, MANY people died in the bombings, but also think about the TOTAL damage caused in World War II. It had to end, and Japan was in the way. Besides, we tried to warn them; more than 700,000 leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima as a warning, but they did not take it seriously. As far as other options go, what were there? We COULD have invaded, but it was estimated by many military strategists that about 1 million American lives would be lost. And who was to say that they would even surrender after an invasion? Innocent lives? Let's think about Pearl Harbor and how many civilians died: WITHOUT WARNING. We actually did give Japan a warning on August 4th, as stated above, and I have a letter in my possession from my scholars history class addressing the refusal of a surrender declaration. Let us also consider that this technology was relatively new and, I will not deny that there was awareness of radioactivity after the explosion, that the true consequences that would go on for years were not fully understood. If you're upset about the loss of lives because of the atom bomb, blame those who caused World War II itself and the Japanese leaders for not surrendering. They were warned, our country was still angry about Pearl Harbor, and an invasion would just cause more damage to Americans than the Japanese.
Posted by: crclark999The other situation
Is that we don't drop the atomic bombs, and begin a massive full-scale invasion of Japan ultimately leads to the death of millions of people, and not just he 200 or so thousand that did die with the dropping of the two atomic bombs. We had to send a clear message o Japan, and we effectively did so, while in the same measurement we avoided the death of millions of other people.
Posted by: AnonymousRevenge is a technical of war.
It is a most important incident for America. If they hadn't drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they failed to prevent their citizens. America always control the world countries, so we may call America is a guidance country to other countries. I strongly Agree with the statement. Thank you!!!
Posted by: K3lvHappySaved more lives than it dealt
A full scale invasion of the Japanese archipelago would of cost 2 million American lives and 3 million Japanese lives and due to the Japanese Samurai culture. They would of never given in until all if Japan was flattened. Therefore, the dropping of a nuclear weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was totally justified
Posted by: AnonymousHow else were they going to stop the war.
How was the war going to end? If they did not do that then they would have been fighting still, or another war could have started, and people did not want that to happen, so they dropped it, so they would be done with it. I know it is bad because all those people had family and their homes were gone, and they had no place to go, but they did what they had to.
Posted by: AnonymousIt saved American and Japanese lives by ending the war.
The atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. It closed World War II and 66,000 people were killed (War Bird). America leveled the city and Japan quickly surrendered afterward. The bombing of Hiroshima was justified because it saved American and Japanese lives, allowed retaliation for Pearl Harbor, and brought the war to an end.
By dropping the atomic bomb, thousands of American and Japanese lives were saved. If the war had continued, so many more young men would have died. The were sending them to battle only to be killed, and America prevented that. “Jesus, if we’re successful, we’re might shorten this damn war. And if we’re not, the least we can do is save a lot of lives. We’ll take a lot, but we’ll save a lot more” (Sider and Tibbets). When the American military dropped the bomb, they changed everything. If they hadn't, then the war would have continued with as little progress as the past few years.
They even saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the future. If America hadn't dropped the bomb, they would have had a lot more countries to go to war with. By dropping the bomb, America showed other countries what could happen to them if they messed with the U.S.A. So by doing so, we saved lives in the future by preventing them from going to war. Also, we really pushed the Japanese to surrender by dropping the atomic bomb. If America hadn't dropped it, Japan could have been planning something big too. “The bomb was necessary to accomplish Truman’s primary objectives of forcing a prompt Japanese surrender and saving American lives” (Alperovitz and Walker). Some people say that Japan had already lost, but then why hadn't the Japanese surrendered yet? In order to end the war and save lives, America had to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. The bomb ensured Japan’s defeat and also allowed America to save the risks of another surprise attack. By dropping the atomic bomb on Japan’s Hiroshima, it allowed American and Japanese lives to be saved, then and in the future.Posted by: AnonymousIt Had To Be Done
Japan was storming Asia. They had killed many people and were just getting away with it. To begin with America was just simply appeasing. But this caused what it always does greed. The Japanese thought that bombing pearl harbour would be ok. So if America hadn't of retaliated the Japanese would have been more violent. So for the first time ever there was a serious need for a nuclear deterrent. So America stood in and did what needed to be done.
I understand that some of the innocent were hurt but if the Americans launched an invasion then there would have been even more losses to both side it was the best thing to do. They had tried many other things like manmade a tsunami but hat failed.
Also this was a giant leap to in science.
To conclude, America was completely justified to do what they did.Posted by: 11jmYes the bomb should have been dropped...
• Japan was not about to surrender “We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.”
• Japan had previously killed over 2,000 people in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
• The only thing we had done badly to Japan was cutting off our trade and limiting there oil supply. (in other words they started the violence of attacks) And even limiting their trade was reasonable because they were quickly conquering the Indian Ocean and wanted to take the Pacific also.
• Without the bomb being dropped Japan would have most likely attacked again with the power they had. The bomb ended any chance the Japanese had of attacking us.
• Without the bomb THOUSANDS more Americans could have died due to the Japanese attacking us and that would be simply unacceptable.
• Japan was simply impossible to bargain with since they were willing to sacrifice every last person they had.
• If your country is in war you are in it to win it, you must use any force necessary to protect your nation.
• They attacked us first when we had done nothing to provoke them. (Take a dose of your own medicine)
• They were warned! Even though nothing about the word atomic bomb was mentioned we still stated that there would be complete and utter destruction.
• Japan was not going to give up soon and our men were being killed. It’s either let your own men die or kill the enemies, either was they are both brutal which would you chose?Posted by: jennaelizabethIt was justified.
Dropping the bombs on was justified for many reasons. First, to take full control of Japan, an estimated on 1 million soldiers would lose theirs lives. Second, the people wanted revenge for the bombing of Pearl Harbor which brought America into the war. Lastly, the government had already spent millions of dollars on the research and creation of the atomic bomb. If people heard that the government had weapons that could end the war without the loss of more soldiers the government would crumble.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat would you do?
Which would you rather prefer: us getting bombed, or them? Taken from any other stand point we were in the right, they attacked us. We ended this war in a defensive position; they were going to bomb us if we didn't bomb them.
We helped them rebuild and now they are our allies, they wouldn't have done the same for us.Posted by: AnonymousWwii might not have ended, ninelester37 is ignorant.
The Japanese were not exactly going to give up. Sure, at the very most 300,000 were killed in the bombings, but how much more would have been killed if the us had invaded the Japanese archipelago? Plenty more, perhaps in the millions, of Japanese and American soldiers would have died, and a full on land assault may have demolished most of the major cities of Japan, because that's just how war works, you don't just stop halfway and leave. The American economy would have been screwed over because of much more investments towards the war effort, and the entire image isn't pretty. ninelester37, your ignorant comment speaking, and I quote, "Americans think that that their lives are more precious than those of other nations, which is tragi?" Is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. I don't think you've heard of the rape of Nanjing, where the Japanese raided a village in China and raped the women and killed civilians. Or how Japan used Korea as a colony and effectively became an imperialist nation screwing them over. Or how they invaded Manchuria and created a large war there, that involved the suffering of many people. And I'm sure that you don't know that the Japanese considered Asian people to be racially superior than all other races, and that the Japanese are the "master race?" Of their "master race." You definitely don't know that they planned on making the Japanese empire take over all of eastern Asia since they thought that they were so much better than everyone. I'm not trying to say it's a good thing to toss bombs into nations and blow them into the stone age, because that is nothing but death. But there was no other option that would have lead to less death. Want statistics? Around 485,000 Japanese troops died against the us. Again, these are only soldiers. If the us had invaded, you could probably expect this to go up to the millions because this invasion would have taken many years and many men, across many cities, across the entire Japanese archipelago. This is not including potential civilian casualties. This is opposed to anywhere from 200,000-300,000 that died in the bombings. In a war like this a clear-cut winner needs to be established. One of us, the axis or the allies, had to be completely defeated or a surrender would have to be exercised. There was too much hatred and prejudice on both sides, allied and axis, to warrant a safe peace treaty. The Japanese would not have given up, and neither would the Americans. Don't say that Americans were being Nazi's when the Japanese have historically been just as Nazi to other east Asian countries. Ask the Chinese and the Koreans. If we had invaded, more people would have died, and at this point a peace treaty would have been impossible.
Posted by: AnonymousDeath of millions
If we had not dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States would have been forced to land an assault. However in Japanese culture, to surrender is extremely shameful, so troops would probably fight to the death, so not only would thousands upon thousands of U.S. Troops die, the Japanese troops and people would be slaughtered which could mean hundreds of thousands or even millions of people would have died as well.
Posted by: AnonymousSaved American Lives
For months and years in the early stages of WW II the Japanese and Germans were more better supplied and prepared to wage war than the United States and our allies. The Japanese and Nazis only understood superior force. Thus the atomic bombs and fire bombing of Europe was justified to end the wars in Europe and Pacific. We saved the lives of an estimated 4 million American lives
Posted by: gramboIt was needed.
The Japanese won't give up. Although many lives were lost it was needed. We saved more lives than we killed. Because we showed Japan that we were powerful and we would not give up. If we waited longer than the three days we waited, Japan would plan another attack. If they did this we would plan another attack and the war wouldn't stop. We had to show them that we meant it and that we were powerful. Although many innocent lives were lost and that is horrible we saved more lives in the end than we killed. So I personally think the bombs were worth it.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Japanese military was strong and powerful in many ways; one being they rarely ever gave up. After Pearl Harbor, they had to be o
At the time there was no other reasonable choice since the expected casualty count of an invasion would have been the highest of the war, hundreds of thousands would have been killed on both sides. Dropping the atomic bombs actually resulted in far fewer casualties than an invasion, and stopped the war in its tracks.
As for those bemoaning the loss of civilian lives; Japan started the war, we ended it. Also, Hiroshima & Nagasaki were both military port cities, not civilian ports, and there were military personnel mixed with civilians in both cities. There was no way to end the war without the loss of civilian lives, but as I said before using the atomic bombs resulted in the loss of fewer lives, civilian and military, than an invasion.Posted by: joyce.villalongjaThe use of the atomic bomb was probably the only way to prevent multiple of millions dying through conventional war.
Harry Truman stated that the atomic bomb was as much a psychological weapon as a physical one. Once people understood how terrible it could be, the leaders decided to surrender. If surrender had not occurred, it is possible the war would have dragged on for years, with millions and millions dying. I'm not insensitive to the horror of the bomb and the suffering that it incurred, but the question for me seems to be who should do the suffering? The leaders of the Japanese alliance were unwilling to negotiate. They were warned, yet displayed arrogance and committed terror of their own. The best argument I know of for supporting the dropping of the bombs, is that it worked. The war ended after that.
Posted by: C3II0FriendOperation Downfall, The Atom Bomb and the lesser of two evils.
The United States had two options, one named operation downfall involved a land invasion of Japan. This attack would have involved mass bombings to destroy military equipment, however due to inaccuracy air raids similar to those over Berlin would have occurred, and in the words of US generals, "Japan will be a nation without cities" Casualties from such an attack would have numbered in the tens of millions for civilians, and the US landings would have been a disaster for both sides. A million casualties from military only if both sides were added together. The US produced so many purple hearts for Operation Downfall that they were still used as recently as the war in Iraq. The second option was the atom bombs, while they causes many thousands of casualties they insured the survival of millions and ultimately he continued existence of the Japanese Nation. the Atom bombs were a justified attack.
Posted by: AnonymousThe United States were justified in the usage of the atomic bombs
The Japanese had no intention of surrendering before 1945 with an estimated 5 million soldiers (must be cited) even though they were in rough shape due to the fact that their industrialized economy was running out of oil. Oddly enough by spring of 1945 the Japanese wanted to surrender because they could no longer sustain a full out war when they lost their source of oil. Near the end of July, the United States proposed the Potsdam Declaration. This declaration consisted of a non-conditional surrender by Japan. This manuscript entails the surrender of the Japanese forces and the permanent destruction of Japan's power so they will be incapable to strike an aggressive blow at the Pacific. The consequences if the declaration were to not be signed were Britain, Russia and The United States would ally and completely obliterate Japan. The Japanese noticed that by signing the surrender document the Japanese would lose their figure-head, known as the emperor. In 1945 the emperor, Hirohito, was praised and highly looked up to. For the Japanese, to lose their emperor was to end all life itself. Unfortunately for Japan, the document was rejected. Once the surrender declaration had been rejected the United States set forward the quickest and most effective way to make the Japanese surrender. It turned out that their plan was to use the atomic bomb. The intentions of the United States was to only use one atomic bomb, but unfortunately japan did not surrender after the first bomb so they had to drop a second one.
During early summer of 1945 the strategic plan of the United States to make the Japanese surrender was initially to launch an all-out air, land and sea attack on the Japanese homeland. This plan had been created without the reliance of the atomic bomb. The US predicted that the siege of Japan, if followed through, will last over a yearlong of constant violence back and forth between sides. The US had geared up over 5 million troops for the assault. The States would expect well over a million casualties of their own and considering their past engagements with the Japanese they were able state that the enemy casualties would be much greater. To the US it was clear that even before the assault of Japan they would be able to inflict ruthless damage on their homeland. At that point with their plan in mind they were still uncertain whether or not the Japanese would surrender. With the consideration of all this in mind the US realised that because of the predicted mammoth amount of casualties and the uncertainty of the Japanese inducing a surrender, they would no longer think about the idea of gambling with the lives of the American military troops that would be potentially involved. The use of the atomic bomb directly came after this great realisation.Posted by: MrXplicitI did research, I bet half the people who said 'no' did absolutely no research.
1.emperor hirohito would not surrender. He would do anything to win the war. The military leaders worshiped him and did anything he wanted them to do. 2. The atomic bomb was not targeted at civilians. During a public speech, president truman said, "i urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately and save themselves from destruction." He obviously cared about the civilian people of Japan and was strictly bombing areas with high military or industrial advantage to Japan. In truman's diary, he stated that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.(july 25, 1945)" 3. The atomic bombs killed less people and did less damage that the fire bombing raids prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs. 4. Emperor hirohito told women and children to either fight, or commit suicide because it was a this?race to their country. 5. The atomic bombs were beneficial to Japan and America because less lives were destroyed. If a land raid occurred, many Japanese lives would be destroyed, and even more American lives would be destroyed.
Posted by: AnonymousThink about it.
Well they stopped the war, so even though they killed thousands, they did save more in the long run. I think that even Japan would understand now why the US did it! If they actually did it for a bad reason everyone would hate the US so it is obvious that it was a good idea!
Posted by: AnonymousIt was a good idea
I think it was a good idea because it ended World War II . Imagine how horrible it could of been if WWII was elongated ?? At least 2,500 people died during pearl harbor and 50-70 million people died during the war. If that bomb wasn't dropped this would have been way higher. Besides, they bombed us first. If they didn't bomb pearl harbor we wouldn't have gone into war. The atomic bomb wouldn't have been necessary. I know it was inhumane but, but in a way they had no choice. They wanted it to end so the bomb was dropped and WWII ended.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, it was justified.
After thoughtful consideration I believe the U.S was justified about dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S warned Japan to back off or they will suffer major devastation and destruction. The U.S has to take care of itself first, and if we didn't drop the bombs millions of Americans could have died, but not only die but get very sick from the shock. Truman made a rational decision in order to protect his country. He showed no signs of mercy and that the U.S is not to be messed with or threatened. Overall, yes the bombings did kill innocent women, men and children in Japan but would you rather that be our American people? I don't think so, the U.S did what we had to do to protect our country and its people!
Posted by: AnonymousThe real reason is the easiest way
This conflict between the US and Japan was getting too serious. Just when the World War was about to stop the other side of the world started to fight. If this fight wasn't ended in a quick way it maybe would cause a second round in the world war. The conflict was ended with just 2 bombs. If it wasn't stopped before the war would cause way more deaths than the total deaths at the atomic bomb drops.
RIP.Posted by: AnonymousPearl Harbor was OK but the Bomb was Bad?
These idiots always frame war as a moral issue. The ONLY moral issue of war is survival of your social paradigm. As a practical matter, the bomb wasn't neccesary. As a means of allowing the Japanese to have an excuse to surrender it was priceless. People got hurt? That's what war is, fool.
Posted by: AnonymousYes simply because it killed only 250,000 and it ended the war.
Whereas a land based attack would've killed over 1,000,000 American lives and many more Japanese, the bomb only killed 250,000 Japanese and no one else; also it forced Japan to surrender because they realized that the Americans would defeat them, thus ending the war and saving countless lives. There is also the fact that still to this day Japan has stayed true to the conditions of its surrender.
Posted by: AnonymousJapan believed in TOTAL War
An invasion of the Japanese home island would have resulted in millions of Japanese death. Because the civilian population was being trained to fight and resist everyone was a potential combatant. Further, on Okinawa civilians, committed mass acts of suicide rather than face occupation. The US forces had a kill ratio of 3:1 against mainly trained troops up to that point, that total would have certainly risen and the total destruction of the Japanese culture could have resulted. So the quickest route to an unconditional surrender was the dropping of the Atomic Bomb.
Posted by: AnonymousThe raping of Nanking/Nanjing wasn't an atrocity?
What the opposition likes to forget is that the Japanese committed horrible acts of terror and oppression to invaded countries like South Korea and China. So horrible in fact, that both countries still hold grudges against Japan today, easily 70+ years after the end of the war. One need only look at the riots that occurred in China to see that. Many civilians hate the Japanese because of what happened back then. We can also take those riots and point fingers at the government for holding grudges. If you live in China, symbols of Communist power are pretty obvious. They could have quelled these riots within 5 minutes if they chose to, then erase all records of it ever happening. They're just that controlling. And before anyone says anything about me not knowing anything about China. I live here. In Suzhou, Jiangsu, China. SIP. 3 streets away from a riot. Thank you and have a nice day.
Posted by: AnonymousI believe this action was difficult but justified, and I also believe that it ended World War II.
Although many thousands of lives were lost in these two bombings, this decision was taken with the knowledge that many thousands more would have died had World War II continued to escalate and expand. The U. S. needed to use its considerable military might to bring that escalation to a sure and sudden end.
Posted by: ObsoleteDannyIt ended wwii
If you were president Truman and your previous president spent more than 4 years fighting a war, what would look like a better option? War is expensive. You would rather sit there for weeks starving the Japanese mainland spending even more money, possibly sacrificing the most men to die in one battle? Or send two planes, two bombs and end the greatest, most devastating, bloodiest, traumatic war in human history? What most people don't realize is our bombing raids amounted to more damage then a single atomic bomb did, but you don't hear anyone complain about that. On top of that, most people call Hiroshima and Nagasaki innocent cities. In fact, they were critical Japanese supply and military bases. Some parts damaged, however were part civilian, yes. It wasn't like we were meaning to aim for that area. Bombing runs were always inaccurate then, the Japanese trained for months and barely achieved a 50% hit/miss ratio on pearl harbor. Vietnam for another example, had more bombs dropped in that all of wwii. The reason, in my opinion, why this question always remains is because of what it did to the world. It shoved America into a superpower and turned the world on to nuclear energy. After that bombing, no other atomic/nuclear bomb has been detonated in an act of war, only in a test. Never used again because people learned the destruction held inside. The Cuban missile crisis was close yes, but by know all countries armed with nuclear weapons knows the stakes to launching one.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat would you do?
Think about this: Truman had to make an extremely hard decision. He had to choose between risking millions of lives, not only American, but also Japanese, or dropping two bombs on two insignificant cities, and stopping the war right then and there. Along with that, he was under fierce scrutiny by the entire world. If he had made the wrong decision, and I don't believe he did, he would have been impeached on the spot.
Posted by: AnonymousYES IT WAS JUSTIFIED
If America hadn't dropped the atomic bomb, a full scale invasion on Japan would have been called for. America was already planning this costly invasion and had they gone ahead with it more lives would have been lost and a lot more money would have been spent. It was estimated that the invasion would have resulted in the death of half a million American troops and at least one million Japanese troops. All together the invasion would have killed one and a half million troops with many more injured. In comparison to this only 142,000 people were killed from the bombing and so by dropping the atom bomb more lives were saved making the bombing justified.
Although the bombing was devastating and nearly wiped out both of the cities, the people who were killed were killed instantly meaning that they didn't feel any pain. If the Americans had invaded Japan the soldiers who would have died would have had a long painful death and so it was better to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they had a painless death.
People who say that the atomic bombing was not justified argue about the fact that America gave Japan no warning about the bombing. This is not true as America did give Japan warning. Before the attack American planes had flown over the cities that they were to bomb and dropped leaflets saying that if Japan didn’t surrender then there was going to be ‘prompt’ and ‘utter’ destruction. Some historians disagree against this fact as they claim that no leaflets were found while they were clearing up the mess in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the leaflets could have been destroyed in the bombing. Even though warning was given the citizens decided to stay instead of fleeing and saving their lives. This shows that the amount of people who died was partly their own fault and had they fled the numbers would have been decreased. Because American had given Japan warning and they had chosen to ignore it the bombing was justified.
Because of America we are now able to see the destruction that comes with an atomic bomb. This is why no other country that has an atomic bomb has used it. They are aware of what will happen to the opposing country in result of the bomb and this has stopped them from using it.
Many argue that Japan were about to surrender but America couldn't wait while Japan decided when they were to surrender. They had to take action and stop it themselves.Posted by: AnonymousAmerica was strongly Justified
The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in Hawaii USA and as retaliation from America they dropped two Atom bombs on Japan. "An eye for an eye= A Bomb for a Bomb". You cant kill mass amounts of people and just expect them to not do anything or retaliate. America may have killed many innocent civilians by bombing Japan but they did awake the SLEEPING GIANT.
Posted by: AnonymousIt wasn't just Americans that were saved.
According to some of the comments, I'm a horrible human being for saying the bombing was justified. I'll accept your hate, if you at least read my point of view. Japan was going to fight to the last man. You can't think in the mind of today when it comes to this issue. Back then, surrender was not an option, it was dishonorable. If the US invaded, at least 500,000 on the American side alone would die. Already this is more than how many were lost in the bombings. Now add in the Japanese, add in the deaths and injuries, civilian and otherwise because if you're home is being invaded are you really going to just watch or will you fight? Then, also think of the relationship between these two countries. It began with a bombing and it ended with one. I know, many more were lost during the drop of the A-bombs. Many died horribly by the use of such a weapon. Children were not spared, and the scar still feels new. 200,000 brave people who I wish I could say 'thank you' to gone in a moment. War always requires sacrifice. Some of you still say it was unnecessary and perhaps it was, but I believe differently. Stupid as it sounds, the Japanese were saved as well.
Posted by: AnonymousThe bomb saved lives
The bomb was a merciful act that saved millions of lives if a ground attack was carried though. In addition to this, The Japanese started by attacking us. We answered back. Perhaps the real mistake was that Japan ruthlessly killed thousands in Pearl Harbor before we had done anything to them.
Posted by: AnonymousOf course
1st: They attacked us. Response: They need to be made an example of. 2nd: They refused to quit and continued to fight. Response: In war, you sometimes must force your enemy into defeat. 3rd: The free world is at stake in a global war. Response: Do what needs to be done to defeat evil.
Posted by: AnonymousIt saved more than it killed
The bomb in Hiroshima killed 100,000 people on impact and another 100,000 with the fallout. The Nagasaki bomb killed 40,000 total. That's 240,000 Japanese. 51,983 Americans died in the pacific. The Japanese casualties were much higher. 1,140,429 actually and that was without even reaching their country. Yes it killed many civilians but think of the people that would have died had the war continued.
Posted by: Elibsa118This was justified
The us was justified in dropping the bomb on Japan. It saved more lives than it hurt and it showed Japan that the us is a strong country and should not be messed with. This bomb made us very advanced and ahead in the war and it also basically ended the war in our favor.
Posted by: AnonymousYes and No
The two cities would have been fire bombed anyways and if they didn't drop the bomb even more people from both sides would have lost more lives and exceeded the death toll of both cities because Japan didn't plan on stopping. And what's to say that the Japanese wouldn't have done it to the Americans if they had the chance? It was war. Simple as.
Posted by: AnonymousBOOM BOOOM BOOOM
The question does not pose whether or not it was good whether or not the US used the bomb. It asked whether it was justified. This means seeing the events in the context of the day and using the information available to the United States at the time. In light of such, I can only conclude that the U.S. was justified. While it does seem clear that it was the Soviet declaration of war which pushed the Japanese to surrender, in August 1945, this was not apparent to the U.S. nor even the Soviets. After the first bomb had been dropped, the Soviets thought the war to be over, only to be surprised by Japanese overtures of Soviet peace mediation. The U.S. thought it would be ending the war quicker and even if this later proved to be a fault deduction, such still makes the use of the bombs a justifiable decision. Such was certainly one with reprehensible consequences, but in a war where both sides hitherto had liberally targeted civilian populations, using the bomb did not break precedent.
Posted by: AnonymousYes the U.S. was justified in using atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The question does not pose whether or not it was good whether or not the US used the bomb. It asked whether it was justified. This means seeing the events in the context of the day and using the information available to the United States at the time. In light of such, I can only conclude that the U.S. was justified.
While it does seem clear that it was the Soviet declaration of war which pushed the Japanese to surrender, in August 1945, this was not apparent to the U.S. nor even the Soviets. After the first bomb had been dropped, the Soviets thought the war to be over, only to be surprised by Japanese overtures of Soviet peace mediation. The U.S. thought it would be ending the war quicker and even if this later proved to be a fault deduction, such still makes the use of the bombs a justifiable decision. Such was certainly one with reprehensible consequences, but in a war where both sides hitherto had liberally targeted civilian populations, using the bomb did not break precedent.Posted by: frappeWas the U.S. justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Yes; dropping those bombs killed fewer than any other resolution to the ongoing conflict. Many kids believe that America was certainly not justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their main reason being that “Oh no! Thousands of civilians were killed in the blast. Innocent women and children, in the blink of an eye, gone. How could America do such a thing!” First of all, the Japanese had a war strategy hinging on the idea of sacrifice. The Japanese fought at Okinawa and Iwo Jima despite knowing very well that they would ultimately be pushed off the island. The Japanese demonstrated that they had no respect for the sanctity of life, even of their own citizens.
Posted by: AnonymousYes; dropping those bombs killed fewer than any other resolution to the ongoing conflict.
Many kids believe that America was certainly not justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their main reason being that “Oh no! Thousands of civilians were killed in the blast. Innocent women and children, in the blink of an eye, gone. How could America do such a thing!”
First of all, the Japanese had a war strategy hinging on the idea of sacrifice. The Japanese fought at Okinawa and Iwo Jima despite knowing very well that they would ultimately be pushed off the island. The Japanese demonstrated that they had no respect for the sanctity of life, even of their own citizens. The corrupt Japanese government and military would beat, maim, and kill in order to get what they wanted from their citizens. Their government brainwashed them with false statements and propaganda in order to force the next generation into the military. The next generation may have been young, but if they were raised on the path the Japanese were taking, they would grow up to become monsters. The Japanese cared nothing about their citizens, and if they had no respect for their citizens, imagine what cruelty and atrocities were put on the prisoners of war. The Japanese also were infamous for the worst torturers of all time. Being sentenced to a Japanese war prison was a certain slow, painful, agonizing death.
And second of all, if we did avoid the dropping of the bomb, we would no doubt have to invade the Japanese homeland. That would cost an estimated 500,000 lives on the U.S. side alone, and only 250,000 were killed in the two bomb blasts. That is less than half the deaths of the invasion of Japan. Keep in mind the 500,000 deaths are from U.S. troops alone. The deaths of the Japanese? That is a very hard number to predict, for the fact that fighting to the death and the use of kamikaze as a means to an end could make the deaths range between 500,000 and the total island population. This makes America more than justified to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Posted by: AnonymousJapan is crazy.
They would've fought until the last person in Japan died because that's their mentality. This would have made the war last longer, resulting in many more casualties for the allies. It ultimately saved more people. It is not war mentality to think of preserving the lives of innocent people when the safety of the world is at stake.
Posted by: AnonymousYou're all dumb
It cost the equivalent of 25 billion dollars to make this bomb and the American government wanted to see if it would work. It would have caused 2 million allied deaths and 3 million Japanese deaths for full scale invasion along with countless civilian catalysis, so it was a good idea.
Posted by: AnonymousIf not, more people would have died.
Think of all the people who would have died had the U.S. not dropped the bombs. Otherwise, the Japanese would have attacked the U.S., causing many deaths for both them and for us. The Japanese did not want to surrender, and made sure that everyone knew that, but continued to plan massive attacks/torture/POWs/disregard the warnings which we gave them of the impending bombing.
Posted by: AnonymousFanatical Japan wouldn't have surrendered anyhow.
As a few debates have said, Japan was willing to fight to the last man, woman, and child. As Laura Hillenbrand stated in her book "Unbroken", Japan was taking out school activities and replacing them with war-related training. They were handing little children wooden guns in training. The government was also handing women kendo sticks. As a few have already stated, the dropping of the atomic bomb ended the war quickly and saved many lives.
Posted by: AnonymousIt was a tough decision.
Let me start off by stating that roughly 200,000 people were killed by the dropping of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man”, either immediately or over a period of up to 3 months from radiation sickness. Regardless of the severe number of casualties, the only way to stop the Japanese from fighting and receive an unconditional surrender was to do something drastic. It is ingrained in the Japanese culture to fight to the death or commit suicide if captured. In the end, dropping the bombs saved both American and Japanese lives. We would have had to keep fighting and killing on the Japanese mainland resulting in numerous soldier and civilian deaths. The Japanese military leaders were prepared to fight indefinitely, and only the prospect of the entire annihilation of their country stopped them.
Posted by: AnonymousIt saved more than it killed.
It saved more lives than it killed. The atomic bomb killed around 66,000 to 90,000 at Hiroshima and 60,000 to 80,000 at Nagasaki. It might seem like a lot, but more people died in the battle of Okinawa -12,000 US troops, 95,000 Japanese troops and 140,000 civilians for a total of 247,000. 246,000 died in both atomic bombs, but you need to imagine a full scale attack of Japan. Then double that and you might get how many lives it would cost to take Japan. The big problem is that citizens of Japan might commit suicide like their leaders told them to. Another problem was that in mountains civilian houses looked like bunkers and our troops accidentally killed them. Also civilians would try escaping to our lines at night but we thought they were the enemy and shot them.
Posted by: AnonymousIn 1945, America made one of the biggest decisions it has ever had to face: dropping the atomic bomb.
After much debate and careful thought, the conclusion was made to drop it. There are many reasons for why President Truman decided to make the choice, ranging from protection of the states to just wanting the war to end. But was his fatal decision justified based on the given evidence? This controversial topic is still being discussed even today. The Japanese were showing no sign of giving up, despite the relentless bombardments by the U.S. troops. Truman knew that, due to traditional Japanese honor, there would most likely be no end until one side surrendered, and it wouldn't’t be America. America could not afford to continue fighting such an expensive war, which could have also contributed to the decision to use the bomb. Because of the circumstances Truman was in at the time, he made what he thought was the correct decision. Truman’s choice was correct because there may not have been another way out, and it would cost too much to take that kind of a risk. Due to the economic crisis America was in, the unceasing Japanese fighting, and the protection of U.S. citizens, America was forced into a decision that could have saved millions.
Posted by: Jfrench1127More Japanese civilians died during regular firebombing raids
Far more civilians were dying in the B-29 firebombing missions than with both atomic bombs combined. I suppose those who are obviously ignorant of history use emotion to decide facts and not reality. They must considerate it better to burn alive hundreds of thousands more people slowly and give the Japanese a better chance to kill our bomber crews.
Posted by: AnonymousYes.
A lot of the people against this bombing bring up the fact that innocent lives were taken and so on so forth. Japan initiated war when they attacked Pearl Harbor, who's to say where and when they would attack next? Just because we got them first doesn't make us the monster, because given the opportunity Japan most likely wouldn't have hesitated to do the same thing to the US.
Posted by: AnonymousSaving Lives
While innocent lives died in Japan the members of Japaneese milita and US Army and Navy would have suffered losses up to 10 times that of what was killed. This promotes Utilitarianism as well as morality. Saving lives and the intent of saving lives in moral which was the end result of this decision. Happiness was maximized in that more people and their families lives were spared
Posted by: AnonymousThe Reality Of Japan, and World War II in General
I find that many opponents of the use of the atomic weapon focus highly on how terrible it is ethically, and how awful a decision it was to kill so many people. However, all war is unethical and making a decision involving its trajectory is thus picking the best of multiple terrible options that nearly always involve people dying.
World War II was a war unlike anything we understand today, because the only way to win was to destroy the enemy's means to produce tanks and planes. In the 1940's we did not have smart bombs that could instantly pick out a manufacturing plant and eliminate it without harming innocent civilians. So tragically, the only way to accomplish this was to carpet bomb an entire region. This is why WW2 was commonly referred to as a war on civilians, and why their death toll was so high.
It was an awful time to live, and the war was brutal and took immorality to a whole new level. Unfortunately, I believe the opponents of difficult war decisions often do not understand that simply believing a war to be immoral does not magically make the situation go away. Churchill was an adamant proponent of this and I believe Truman was as well.
One cannot compare the Japanese frame of thought with the Western world at the time, because the Japanese world was almost religious with respect to the worship of their emperor. To invade a country like that is absolutely asking for a bloodbath, as was evidenced clearly by the battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Japanese civilians were even determined to fight with sticks and pitchforks against people armed with machine guns. Many had learned to make bombs to strap to themselves so they could dive under tanks and detonate themselves.
If the United States had not used the bomb, then the only other option was an invasion - causing the deaths of millions upon millions of not only allied troops but also Japanese civilians, and the war to go on for another several years.
Japan may not even exist today if the bomb had not been used, as the radicalism of their ideology would have driven them to suicide before they surrendered. In 2013, it is way too easy to flippantly start declaring Americans terrorists without giving one of the most difficult decisions that has ever been made in the history of warfare some critical thought.
Often no situation is truly ideal in a war, just as a war is not ideal in the first place. But just because we don't want to make these decisions and face their grim reality does not mean they do not exist.
If Truman had not dropped that bomb, millions more people would have died. If anything this illustrates much less the ruthlessness of America, but much more the tragedy of World War II and the intense dangers of unwavering ideology.Posted by: AnonymousGib Me Moni Nao
There is simply nothing wrong with dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, morally killing tens of thousands of Japanese non-combatants is ethically inhuman, but it was completely necessary, in order to break the spirit of the Japanese as a defense force. You could argue that the estimate of the butchering of a million Americans could not be proved, but all the evidence was present. Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, these were all battles during which the American forces were pitted against the Japanese. As the encroaching Allied forces closed in on Japan, the casualty numbers for each successive battle increased by the thousands. There is absolutely no doubt that Japan would fight to the end and devastate the men of thousands of families from all across the United States.
Yes, there were many other ways of ending the war with Japan quickly, such as blockading them, threatening them, beheading them, but each method would take an enormous risk, as well as a plethora of resources. The best and only method that was both deciding and efficient in both destructive power and speed of delivery was the atomic bomb, the brainchild of dozens of bright men across the United States. Without the atomic bomb, surely, the number of American casualties would be huge in comparison to the number of victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. With it, the Allied forces would be ensured total and near-immediate victory in the Pacific theatre of war.
Communism. The idea behind this word sent chills down the governments of the Western countries. Communism threatened the very survival of American values, and post-war, there was no guarantee that the Soviet Union would play by the rules. If a quick victory is prevented by the Americans’ refrain from using the atomic bomb, Communism would spread to the Pacific, and possibly engulf the world, destroying the idea of freedom and democracy. China, Poland, Romania, Eastern Germany; these were all examples of Communism arriving at a country before Capitalism.Posted by: GibMoniIt saved millions of American lives
Because of the bombings the war ended and America did not need to invade Japan at the cost of millions of lives. Also japan was given two chances to surrender but refused both times (the first because the surrender of their army was seen to be a threat to their emperor and the second because they would fight to the last man to protect their country).
Posted by: AnonymousThey deserved it.
Japan had killed so many people in China when they went on a rage of war crimes that the damage they had done on the Chinese capital had actually exceeded the damage America had done when we dropped the bomb. All in all, we were looking for a quick way to end the war and the bombs were fair game.
Posted by: kaylapello25It was their only choice
In late July, 1945 , the allies declared at Potsdam that the Japanese must unconditionally surrender and the Japanese leaders flat out rejected them. They were not budging, so it was our last resort.
The dropping of the bomb impressed Russia and halted the war fast enough so that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.Posted by: AnonymousAtomic bomb was too much...
The fact that the USA were already winning their war between Japan makes the A-bomb pointless and morally unjustified as the Americans had wasted two of their most powerful and destructive weapons on a war they were already winning. The ‘series of attacks’ that America used against Japan stated to be the most effective single bombing attack and killed 80,000 makes the A-bomb morally unjustified because the USA are killing an uncountable amount of civilians when Japan is already crippled with 80,000 people dead, so there is absolutely no need of increased bloodshed.
Posted by: Mojas8Ended the war, thus saving lives.
The atomic bombs destroyed Japan's will to fight. Even though the Japanese were on the losing side of the War, they would not surrender if they believed they have a fighting chance against the Allies. They would rather die just as long as they take out as much allies as they can with them - Kamakazi. If the war continued, we would need to take Japan by force. This would require a lot of men, hundreds of thousands casualties just taking Japan's shores alone. If the bombs didn't drop, the war would've continued for many more years. There would be many more deaths in the millions on both sides. The fire bombing raids - which killed three times as much as the atomic bombs - did not stop the Japanese war efforts. Although the atomic bombs killed many lives, not as much as bullets and bombs, the destruction that it has caused rendered the Japanese hopeless on their war efforts.
Are we willing to not use the atomic bombs because of the fear it would kill innocent people? So we would rather continue dropping fire bombs and regular bombs because they were more humane? Then send millions to their deaths trying to take over Japan or defend Japan? Millions more of civilians would die from the cross-fire and non-stop bombing raids. What kind of logic is that? There hasn't been an atomic, hydrogen or nuclear bomb ever been used on any nation after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We learned what these bombs can do. If the atomic bombs were never dropped in WWII, we would experience the true nature of these bombs during the Cold War or in our generation.Posted by: AnonymousI have something to tell you
Clearing of the war in the pacific The Japanese taught their children how to fight if we invaded. We would have had to kill all of the people, even the civilians which would have lead to more that one million deaths. If we had invaded, we estimated one million casualties on our side alone. By dropping the atomic bomb, we saved lives with the loss of a few. We caused more deaths from consensual bombing then the atomic bombs combined.
Posted by: AnonymousJustified because it saved American lives
Japan already killed over 2,000 people in the Pearl Harbor bombings. We had done nothing to provoke them, unless you count our cutting off trade with Japan, limiting their oil supply. That was also reasonable, as they were rapidly conquering the Indian Ocean and wanted to take the Pacific too.
In addition, this was nearing the end of WWII. Hitler and Germany were already out of the picture, but Japan was still strong, holding several hundred islands in the Indian Ocean. We moved to take out Japan by defeating the Japanese on several islands, but because of their kamikazes, we took heavy casualties, and the Japanese lost far less men than we did.Posted by: AnonymousYes the U.S. was Justified in their actions.
The Japanese were at an extent with the kamikazes that they were starting to get harder to beat. Japan wasn't going down without a fight so we had to do what we had to do. Yes dropping the bombs on them may have been an act of trying to put terror in the hearts but it was nothing like 9/11. 9/11 was a bad act of a bad person that lost his mind but the bombings were to protect our nation. They did it just to strike fear into us. The U.S. Is trying to stop terrorism that is what the war on terror is all about and the dropping bombs was of our countries peoples lives being at stake so we had to do something and we had to do it fast and this was the fastest way we could do it to show that you can't mess with the U.S.
Posted by: AnonymousInnocent People Were not the Target
Truman specifically ordered the bomb to be dropped in a militarized zone. He also said in his diary explicitly that it was not his wish to drop it where innocent women and children exist. Plus there is no other alternative that would exempt the use of American lives to curtail the extent of the war.
Posted by: AnonymousTHE BOMBING WAS JUSTIFIED
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because the war between Japan and America has been going on for already a several years. A couple years before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, and also devastated many lives, and killed 2000. This eventually led to Japan surrendering, and the war eventually came to an end.
“If the war dragged on and Americans had to invade Japan, it might cost a million lives…life for life, the odds were that [the atomic bomb] would cost less.”Posted by: AnonymousA quick way to end the war.
The Japanese refuse to surrender despite heavy firebombing from the Americans. They were still illusioned with the thought that they could still win the war by using Kamikaze tactics to drive the Americans into desperation. Furthermore, Truman was reluctant to let the Russians open up a front against the Japanese for fear of Russian dominance in the Far East. Hence, the US decided to make a first move by dropping the bombs.
Posted by: AnonymousThey stopped war.
If Japan would've just signed a peace treaty or gave some hint that they were going to stop fighting it wouldn't have ended so gruesomely. Also they had it coming by attacking pearl harbor. That was Americas way of revenge and they started it so they really deserved to get put in there place.
Posted by: AnonymousIt very much was
We told the Japanese we were going to bomb them if they did not surrender and they didn't so we did. Then we told them we would bomb them a second time if they did not surrender, so we did. It was their fault own fault. Also, Japan bombed us without warning and destroyed a lot of our war ships killed a lot of our soldiers in the progress. We gave warning and they did not. It is their own fault donor was justified.
Posted by: AnonymousJAPAN = EVIL COUNTRY
Evil country which had enslaved women from other countries as sex slaves and utterly destroyed other countries' cultures. They still don't apologize to the countries that they harmed. They are crazy, it was so right to bomb them with that weapon, they still do not ask for forgiveness for what they have done.
Posted by: AnonymousIt save thousands
It saved more than it killed
The bomb in Hiroshima killed 100,000 people on impact and another 100,000 with the fallout. The Nagasaki bomb killed 40,000 total. That's 240,000 Japanese. 51,983 Americans died in the pacific. The Japanese casualties were much higher. 1,140,429 actually and that was without even reaching their country. Yes it killed many civilians but think of the people that would have died had the war continued.
Posted by: AnonymousWar is war
It killed innocent people. So? War is war. Morals are thrown out the window. Would you rather the enemy die or your allies die? Exactly.
Enemy death is the number one target in war. Dropping the atom bomb achieved this. It got the japanese to surrender, didn't it? American deaths would have continued to happen, but the bomb was a win win in terms of a war standpoint.
If you take a moral standpoint saying they shouldn't have dropped the bomb, you might have a point. But at the end of the day this was war, and the americans won. End of story.Posted by: AnonymousThe US was justified on dropping the bomb on Japan.
Japan attacked the US on pearl harbor which provoked us to attack the nation of Japan. A positive remark was that the atomic bomb saved many more lives than it had killed. To be thankful the atomic bomb saved many lives including American and Japanese lives. The Japanese had many opportunities to surrender, but they didn't so we had no choice.
Posted by: AnonymousDefinitely rigorous decision
The bombing saved the U.S. Millions of lives. You may say that the bombing affected the Japanese civilians, but if you flip it around, would you like to have millions of enemies dead, or millions of own people dead? And Japan attacked us using blitzkrieg, that isn't what war is supposed to be, so as a revenge, the U.S. Did a good job revenging using bombing.
Posted by: AnonymousJapan's Bushido Code
Japan was heavily military controlled during WW2. Their code was to keep fighting to the end and never surrender. The president warned Japan that if they didn't surrender the US would use all their capabilities to stop the war. Thousands of lives have been lost at both ends. The first bomb didn't convince the Japanese government. And If it were not for the Emperor's intervention after the second bomb chances are the Japanese military would have kept on fighting resulting in even more lives lost. If not for the bombs the war would have lasted maybe one or two more years.
Posted by: AnonymousNo doubt it was.
There are 2 ways to think about this, 1: It was the right thing to do, saving countless lives and not to metion money. 2: Innocent people were killed, but they were given warning on the coming danger. So many people were able to leave the area. Also my final point is how the Japanese weren't going to surrender unless forced too... And the only other option was a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would have been disatrous.
Posted by: that_guy_bradAccording to Just War Principles: Yes.
In the Potsdam Proclamation 1945 the Japanese were warned of "prompt and utter destruction" if they did not surrender. They shook it off. The U.S. Then proceeded to warn the civilians to "Evacuate your cities" with over 63 million leaflets dropped over the cities (in which civilians were arrested by Japanese police if caught with them).
Posted by: AnonymousJapan's leaders refused to surrender and bombs were preferable to invasion for bringing a speedy end of war, which saves lives, and it is part of total war
If Truman hadn't dropped the bombs, more lives and casualties would have taken place. There would have been an untold number of lives that perished. And, it would have prolonged the suffering and hardship. The invasion of Japan would have taken more lives and caused heavy casualties in the view of the estimated figure calculated by the US. The bombing was necessary to end the war. If Japan was in support of total war, I don't see why they should complain on the bombing.
Posted by: AnonymousDropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a tough decision that had to be taken.
The bombing ultimately saved American lives and defeated enemies of the country. This caused long-term damage to those enemies but also ended the war. America had to state they were the superpower of the world and the Japanese were tough fighters. The total cost was $2 billion, and would you like $2 billion to lie in your house and rot and not be of any use?
Posted by: AnonymousYes, it saved lives.
There would have been an estimated 31,000 American casualties in the first thirty days of an invasion. By the end of the war loses were expected for over a million on both sides. By dropping bombs Allied prisoners of war could be saved. The POW’s had been told by there capturers that if forces set foot on Japan then they would immediately be killed. Despite loosing thousands of lives in these firebombing, Japan would not surrender. If firebombing continued the death total would be higher than the totals for the atomic bombs.
Posted by: Anonymousyes we were
The Japanese provoked us by bombing pearl harbour, and then continued to draw out a war they had no chance of winning because they had to uphold their "honour" on the battlefield. Dropping the 2 bombs was the only way to break their spirits so they would surrender instead of the U.S having to slaughter all the men in Japan to get them to surrender.
Posted by: Juris_NaturalisOverall points
The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima put a definite and immediate end to the long war, saving many lives and money in the process. The war had already lasted for 6 years and up till then, more than 72,790,000 people including military and civilians had already died. If the bomb had not been dropped, he war would have continued and probably the same amount, maybe even more people would have died. America had to make a precise decision to end the war immediately so to save lives and money.
Japan was very cruel towards prisoners, soldiers and civilians. It has been claimed that Japanese forces were told to kill every prisoner of war, military and civilian, in the event of an American invasion. At the time, the Japanese were extremely loyal to their emperor. They believed that if they died an honorable death in the war, the emperor would come and worship them in their graves. The soldiers would rather die than be captured by the enemy. A very popular method Japan used in the war was the Kamikaze suicide warriors, who would drive and deliberately crash their planes into enemy ships, destroying the ships and themselves along with it. Japanese soldiers behaved extremely brutally towards civilians especially in the event of the Nanking rape where soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army entered Nanking and raped and murdered thousands of Chinese women and children in the most brutal ways. Anyone who stood in their way was killed. Japanese soldiers were also exceedingly inhumane and ruthless towards prisoners of war, an example is the Thai-Burma death railway. During the war, many prisoners of war captured enemy soldiers were transported to Burma and Thailand to work on the 420-kilometre Burma-Thailand railway. The living and working conditions on the railway were horrific. Australian Government figures suggest that about 90,000 of the laborers and about 16,000 allied prisoners died out of the 330,000 people that worked there (including 250,000 Asian laborers and 61,000 Allied prisoners of war).
Some opposing people have argued that, there might be other ways to put an immediate end to the war, but America had already given numerous warnings (like banning oil shipping to Japan) and demands to surrender unconditionally to the war, but in vain. It was clear that Japan was not going to surrender. It’s willingness to fight till the last man, woman and child had died defending its country had made a land invasion too costly. So America had no other alternative or choice, but to use the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war.
Japan was to blame for starting the war when it bombed Pearl Harbour in 1941 and killed a horrendous amount of people, so they deserve to suffer to end the war and surrender.Posted by: kirstykrk7137How can you base the morality of the bomb dropping? Or how many people died in Hiroshima over Pearl Harbor?
Let alone one death in war being a terrible cost, how can you judge the weight of someones death? I find it ironic the few times he decided to keep our noses out of someone else's war, we get dragged into it. Content at leaving Asia to the Asians, I believe it was poor strategy on the Japanese part to drag us into it in the first place. Pearl Harbor was the beginning of a long war for the US. Even though we didn't start it, those bombs sent a clear message across the world, The line is drawn here... just imagine if the war had continued how many more lives would have been lost? And even through violence we find peace, today weapons of that nature are slowly being dismantled and safety regulations have been enforced so that the likelihood of such an attack is greatly decreased... Just sometimes we need a reminder to show us how terrible war can be. With that common enemy in mind, Japan and the US have fantastic relations today. And as our cultures mingle and we learn more about one another we can trust one another to solve our troubles with diplomacy and never to resort to such measures again... God knows the cost of us never learning that so incredibly important lesson... And in response to Hariwan, Damn right we would have won the war! If I'm anything, I'm a patriot! USA USA USA!!!
Posted by: Skylark_FunderbergTHINK ABOUT ASIA
In china, numerous Chinese women were being raped and killed. In Korea, many koreans were killed as well. Unit 731 was a Japanese military science unit specializing in chemical warfare. 3000 are believed to have died from that unit's experiments alone.
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely
I would never subject my military to a ground war on the Japanese mainland.. it would have only prolonged the war and cost countless more lives.. War is a sad and brutal thing.. it is truly hell.. and while no one ever wants to use the bombs, they were necessary. Those who want to be mad at America need to be mad at Japan.. they launched a cowardly sneak attack on us while we were trying to find compromise with their diplomats here in the US.. we lost lots of men at Iwo Jima and we knew that prolonging the conflict would have only been more horribly devastating than the bombs were.
We dropped the first bomb and demanded that they surrendered, they did not and condemned their people to round 2. Bomb 2 was dropped, they caved and surrendered, and so ended World War 2.
To all you bleeding hearts.. imagine US Soldiers trying to storm Japans mainland.. it would have been impossible.. to you bleeding hearts.. imagine the torture and killing that the Japanese did to lands they conquered without a care in the world.. to all you bleeding hearts.. imagine what would have happened if they brought war to the US mainland.. aside from scattered small bombs that hit off the Oregon coast. The Japanese people didn't deserve it, but that nation asked for it.. and it was in the best interest of the Allied powers and the US that the whole conflict was ended right there.
Don't blame FDR and Truman.. blame Hirohito and the invaders that gave us any reason at all to do what we did. War is war, it isn't a game.. it is just killing in the name of your nation as an offense or defense. I shed a tear for the lives that were lost, but I will never in my life second guess that decision.. in fact I'd make the same decision myself if I had to.Posted by: AnonymousThe US was justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The US was justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because that action ended the war. The Battle for Okinawa represented the Japanese attitude of fighting to the last man. Invading the main Japanese islands would have cost millions of lives. World War II Japan can not be judged by today's standards. In World War II Japan it was socially acceptable for the Japanese to invade Nanking, China and kill all the men and turn the women into sex slaves for Japanese soldiers.
Posted by: JamieMThe US was indeed justified in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Truman eventually put it was that he simply had to choose what would save the most American people, and they beleived the solution was the Atomic bomb. What would not have been justified would have been to simply hit the mainland of Japan with dirty bombs and sit back as Japan slowly turned to cancer. While I do not beleive that it convinced the Japanese, I beleive their fear of Russia caused that, I beleive they were justified in attempting to save lives.
Posted by: AnonymousYes
I'm sorry, but if you want to play someone for the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, blame the Japanese government. Not only did they instigate the war by attacking America on home soil, they were allies with Hitler and the Nazis. And even when they were clearly the losers of the war, they were still killing American soldiers due to their "pride." If you were harry Truman, and you saw that your young soldiers were dying in a war that was already lost because your enemy refused to surrender, you have no choice but to drop the bomb. I hope the Japanese government explained to their citizens the nature of "pride" once these bombs exploded.
Posted by: AnonymousClearing of the war in the pacific
The Japanese taught their children how to fight if we invaded. We would have had to kill all of the people, even the civilians which would have lead to more that one million deaths. If we had invaded, we estimated one million casualties on our side alone. By dropping the atomic bomb, we saved lives with the loss of a few. We caused more deaths from consensual bombing then the atomic bombs combined.
Posted by: AnonymousRelative morality
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the Japanese had a war strategy hinging on the idea of sacrifice - the Japanese fought at Okinawa and Iwojima despite knowing full well that they would ultimately be pushed off the island. The Japanese demonstrated that they had no respect for the sanctity of life, even of their own citizens. Most of the arguments presented against the use of the bomb hinge on the concept that the united states could have followed diplomatic means instead of military means. The fact is, we attempted to. On July 26th, 1945, the Potsdam declaration was issued to the Japanese, requiring their immediate surrender. The document even went so far as to force the fact that we did not want to destroy or enslave the Japanese people, we simply wanted the war over in fact, the deceleration made three famous points - "we do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, . The Japanese government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of Democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established." "Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted." "the occupying forces of the allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government." We told them that unless they agreed to the potsdam declaration, and international effort with universal support, they would be visited by complete destruction and carnage. They still rejected. The loss of life of a conventional invasion into the Japanese mainland would have been several magnitudes larger than both nuclear weapons claimed, but still, the Japanese refused reason. The first bomb was dropped. After little boy was dropped, the Japanese were again given the chance to surrender, with Truman stating, "if they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware." The Japanese again refused, the emperor having no value for human life and demonstrating such in spades. It took the second bomb, a military coup, and two assassination attempts for the emperor to finally end the war. The loss of life between Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 246,000 Japanese citizens. The loss of life projected in a mainland invasion? 500,000 us citizens. The loss of life for the Japanese in such an invasion cannot be projected, as the concept of fighting to the death and the use of kamikaze as a means to an end could make the deaths range between 500,000 and the total island population. so what is more ethical? An action resulting in 260k deaths, or one resulting in a minimum of 500k deaths?
Posted by: Anonymous
There is no way that the U.S. was justified.
America was not justified in dropping the bomb. First off they had no idea how strong this bomb was or how much damage it would cause, they just decided to drop the bomb on a city filled with innocent children and people. I mean yes there had to be an end to the war but I feel like there was a better way of doing that. They could have figured out something other than blowing up Japan. There is no way that some one can honestly think that it is okay to kill thousands of innocent women, children,... People. They were all people. And the U.S. ended their lives just because they could. Innocent people didn't need to die to end the war. It just wasn't right and it wasn't necessary.
Posted by: AnonymousThey killed innocent people.
Not only was the warning to Japan only 5 days before the bombs were dropped, there were still innocent people in Japan. USA killed over 140,000 innocent people in Japan along with 2,000,000 people killed by radiation, not even considering the people who now are deformed and linked to cancer. That's way more than the bombs at the twin towers that killed around 3,000 people. No matter if Japan was supporting Germany, there were still INNOCENT PEOPLE that were killed. And I still know that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, which had no innocent people (because they were all troops). Those people are DEAD for no reason.
Posted by: PickleInnocent people were killed. These were relatively untouched cities during the war.
Additionally, the Japanese were already pretty much defenseless and had many defeats. We were basically kicking them when they were down. The research for this bomb equaled up to 2 billion dollars (25 billion dollars in today's economy). There are many other options America could have chosen. It's a shame that this had to happen.
Posted by: AnonymousKilling civilians
The bombs were dropped as a direct retaliation action of the U.S.A. To the attack of pearl harbor, which is a military facility. It was USA's military naval gateway to the pacific and south east Asia. But why must the bombs dropped in the middle of civilian cities, i.e. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the majority casualties were civilians. Not to mention the long term effect the nuclear weapon has on the public health for decades. U.s.a. Was and still is the only nation that have deployed full scale nuclear attack on another nation. And now they are ironically championing the anti-nuclear campaign. To me, the bomb on Japan was far worst than the alleged holocaust during the ww2. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are the real holocaust!
Posted by: AnonymousI would never second America?\'s action of dropping those killer bombs on the Japanese cities. There are over a thousand reasons that I detest the same; but the top reason may be that war is never a way to try to dominate over another country.
The atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has changed Japan for ever perhaps. The amount of destruction and death that the bombs had caused is perhaps unparalleled in any other human induced destruction. Not only thousands of people died; millions were maimed for life, rendered homeless, suffered mental shocks and remained traumatized all their lives even decades afterwards. The bombs destroyed the twin cities to a mere heap of rubble and charred corpses. I guess no body of a sound mental condition will ever second this ghastly act by the Americans.
Posted by: SmarterTabbyDropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a disgusting and inhumane thing to do.
Taking out thousands of civilians has to be considered a war crime. The only nation that shouldn't be allowed weapons is the US, as it is too uneducated to use them. Truman was nothing other than a brutal murderer, as were the men who dropped the bomb and the ones who supported it.
Posted by: AnonymousAn evil act.
America had no right to target thousands of innocent civilians, simple as that. This is a war crime, and those responsible should be tried for the war crimes they committed. Just because its America doesn't mean what they do is the moral way. Yes, Japan did awful things, but America lowered themselves to a incredibly low level with this evil action.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, anyone who says otherwise is a horrible human being that doesn't want to admit that the United States is not a force for good.
Prior to reading some of these arguments, I was honestly willing to believe that Americans were at least somewhat remorseful for the horrible crime that was the dropping of the Atomic bomb. Wow, have you people ever proven me wrong. It appears that not only do Americans believe that this disgusting act was justified, but that it was the right thing to do. You disgust me. Children, I repeat, innocent children, were butchered. Many of these children died slow, horrible deaths. I can only imagine the outrage that would come from the citizens of the United States if New York had been bombed, and instead you were the ones who had to watch the skin melt off of your children's faces. I even read one comment stating that dropping the atomic bomb was a good thing, because it allowed people to see the effects. To whomever said that, screw you, you are a despicable human being. The United States is an evil Juggernaut that uses their powerful military to rob poor, desolate countries of what little wealth and oil they have. Your nation is evil, accept it, and maybe use your voices to try and change it. Your ignorance will not stop the mass murders committed to this day in the name of American "freedom."
Posted by: AnonymousMilitary vs Civilian.
It seems to be a matter of personal philosophy. If you believe that the ends justify the means, then dropping the bomb may seem justified. However, then you seem to indicate that you do not regard an attack on civilians, regardless of the extent they are involved in the war effort, to be any different than an attack on military. A military is a fighting force who at least expects that they are putting their life on the line to serve their country, for whatever purpose that may entail. They have willingly made a commitment understanding that death is a possibility. That is their sacrifice, and we should all greatly appreciate them for that. Civilians are completely different. Their involvement in war rarely extends so far. How can you possibly consider them to be necessary to a war effort, unless you have no particular regards to whom you kill to get done what you need to get done? If that is so, then yes, you believe the ends justify the means. Just know then that you have no right to complain about any action similar to such, like 9/11. We meant to send a message to the Japanese with a bomb on their civilians. The terrorists meant to send a message to us when attacking the WTC. The message may be different, but both chose to attack civilians to get our message across. If you choose to see it differently, then it is because you are making it personal. Perhaps then you should consider how others may make what we did personal, similar to how you view what 9/11 did to us. I have not served in a military, so perhaps my viewpoint is skewed when I say this, but if I personally had to make the choice, I think I would rather continue to fight a long and hard struggle, rather than slaughter innocents. I guess it depends on whether you value the victory or integrity of the nation more.
Posted by: AnonymousTactically yes; Morally no.
This can be answered both yes and no. It can be answered yes because the Japanese were a very unrelenting enemy. At the end of the war, the Japanese emperor would only be able to safely surrender to the US and keep his position if he surrendered to a higher power, which the atomic bomb can easily be considered to be. This justified the decision tactically, as it was the only way to get the emperor to surrender. However, the decision to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people can in no way be considered to be morally justifiable, if for no other reason than it involving the deaths of innocents. Also, this betrayed the morals that what we consider a just and civilized society to be based upon; namely, the right to live. When an action is required to preserve a nation that will betray the rights and values that that nation is founded upon, then the nation has betrayed itself.
Posted by: AnonymousTargeting civilians is unnecessary - they do not choose the ways of their government, and despite radiation being a small problem (see Physics for Future Presidents, a great book) there was still unnecessary damage.
See argument below.
Posted by: AnonymousI don't think that bombing Japan made them surrender quicker.
After the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, most of the generals who were is favor of surrendering had already been in favor of surrendering. What did get them to surrender was the threat from the Soviet Union that they would launch a huge offensive against Japan if the country didn't surrender. As a matter of fact, Japan surrendered days after the bombs were dropped. I don't feel that the bombs made them surrender, if that was the case they would have surrendered immediately after the bombs were dropped. Another shocking fact is that the Atomic bombs killed around 3,000 Japanese Americans and 20,000 Koreans. The attack of Pearl harbor only killed 2,300, so the "American Friendly" atomic bombs killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor did.
Posted by: Anonymousthe us show an act of weakness
The us was scared if they didnt used the bomb they wold have lose, they were showing a act of cowardness and plus in the Bible it says thou shall not kill and what did the Us did kill over thousands of innocent people that was even in the war. well i hope the people that drop the bomb got saved because if they didnt there in hell now. but i doubt they repented.
Posted by: AnonymousThe atomic bombs were unnecessary.
Dropping the atomic bomb had a strong effect on both the U.S and Japan. After the U.S dropped the atomic bomb in Japan, promising that it would end the war between the U.S and Japan without any drawbacks from the alternatives, it was an unnecessary thing to do. The U.S was going to let Japan know that their emperor can remain in power, and the Soviet Union had already declared war on Japan on August 8th, as agreed before the atomic bomb had hit Japan. Dropping the atomic bomb in Japan mostly KILLED INNOCENT children, women.........PEOPLE.
Posted by: AnonymousUS couldn't win the war against Japanese
Thats why they used nuclear bomb against innocent civilians. It's was an act of coward. Only a coward would do that.
Pear harbor attack killed almost 3000 people and in Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed over 200 thousand people. The guy who dropped the bomb over Japan, is in hell now.Posted by: HariwanThey broke Laws doing it, & it killed about 260,ooo inocent people.
Yes, by dropping atomic bombs the United States broke the Hague Convention (1907)
Generally speaking though, the U.S. Always did their best to obey the Hague Convention, for example:
Article 26 (Section IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land):
"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."
Before bombarding Japanese cities, the U.S. Military always warned the citizens. However, they did not warn the residents of Hiroshima PRIOR to dropping the atomic bomb, only after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima did they warn citizens, which came before bombing Nagasaki.
Dropping atomic bombs on civilian cities violated these articles:
Article 25 (Section IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land):
"The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."
Article 27 (Section IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land):
"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."
There is no doubt, the atomic bombs violated Article 26 and Article 27 under Section IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land. Both the United States of America and the Empire of Japan had signed the Hague Convention of 1907 and by international law, both nations had to obey the rules of war as laid out by the treaty. It's worth mentioning that Japan (whether accidentally or not) violated this particular one:
Article 1 (Section III - The Opening of Hostilities):
"The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."
Japan violated this article by commencing hostilities against the United States at Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese military commanders responsible were executed at the Tokyo Trials. German war criminals were also hanged for violating articles of the Hague Convention. It's worth mentioning that no Allied officers were ever brought before an international court when they violated the Hague Convention.
They also broke others laws....Posted by: AnonymousAmerica should think more of what they should do rather than what they could do.
ARGUMENTS:
DWIGHT ESINHOWER:
was against the bomb. He knew Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. He also said our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was his belief that Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss. He say in an interview "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing”
HERBERT HOOVER::
“The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
ALBERT EINSTEIN::
Albert Einstein said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate.
Japanese people were living under the rule of an emperor, they had nothing to do with the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Dropping a bomb on the city park s very different than dropping one on the battle field.
America was grieving Hitlers atrocious Holocaust when what we did was no better.
Success in the Pacific front was not critical.
Maybe if America had tried harder show Japan what they would do without a surrender or made the surrender conditional Japan would have been more lenient on giving up.
It is a common argument that it would have saved more lives in the end but the Japanese were wiling to negotiate an end to conflict before the bomb was dropped.
Japan was not necessarily willing to surrender unconditionally because of their culture but there might have been room to achieve a compromise and one should have been attempted before even considering the use of the Atom bomb.
If the U.S. is to become respected in other cultures and thus safer, it must begin questioning it answers to moral questions about it choices.
War is without a doubt an evil but letting men fight for their country rather than killing thousands of innocent's is the lesser of two evils.
But we are all part of one united race, the human race.
Opened a completely new avenue for nucular weapons. It can be argued that the dropping of the atomic bomb started the Cold War. If Americans don’t have a problem dropping an atom bomb what reserves should rest of the world have?Posted by: AnonymousAn act of Terrorism
The nuclear weapon is not a tactical or strategical one. It is not designed to take out military relevant targets, just to destroy everything in a huge area. It is, therefore, a weapon to create fear among the country, or terror, if you will. So, in essence, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism performed by the USA.
Posted by: AnonymousThere were other possibilities
I see the argument on both sides. However, I think that the United states had left unexplored several possibilities that could have minimized loss of life. First of all, they should have done a demonstration bomb to show our destructive potential and let the Japanese mull over their chances then. Second, we should have waited for Russia to enter the war to increase the ever-growing feeling of impending doom. There was scarcely one day between Russia's declaration of war and the dropping of the Fat Man on Nagasaki -there should have been a waiting period to give Japan more time to give up. So in conclusion, I can see both sides, but I just don't think that he United States tried hard enough to avoid civilian casualties.
Posted by: AnonymousCruelty to Japan.
They should not have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it affected the people of Japan and continues to affect them. If a bomb was dropped on the United States, they would still be taking revenge. I think they did that in the war because they were jealous because Japan was more high tech than the U.S.
Posted by: AnonymousRape of Nanking does not justify the bombing.
A nonsensical argument I have heard of late is that the Atomic Bomb is justified because the japanese brutalized the Chinese. "They raped and killed millions, so its payback, theres no sympathy." If the USA really did want to prevent war crimes then they would have stepped in earlier to stop the Holocaust and Hitlers expansionist actions. Nanking doesn't justify the bombing. This is for the small minority that claim such nonsense.
Posted by: AnonymousUS made out as villains.
The main problem, besides the moral one of killing a lot of people, was that soldiers are only supposed to kill other soldiers. Sometimes civilians get killed, they had collateral damage back then too, but the purpose of an attack is supposed to be to kill the enemy army or to damage the war machine. So it is okay to shoot at someone shooting at you, and it is okay to bomb a factory, even if some civilians get bombed by mistake, but it is not okay to randomly bomb civilians. That is what Hitler did to England with his V-1 and V-2 rockets. The Germans just sent the rockets to land in London or other big cities and to kill and terrorize as many people as possible. By dropping the atomic bombs the US intentionally killed the entire civilian populations of those cities. That is called collective punishment and is now a war crime.
Posted by: Red_StevensThe bombs were not justified.
The US has a history of going into countries and doing what they believe is correct. It seems like they are 'helping' that country, but at the end, the actions end up benefiting the US as well. Yes, the US is a big country and very powerful. These aspects have been abused and used to try and force other countries to follow their orders without a choice. The US was already showing physical power. Japan knew they had screwed up, they were showing their desperateness with the kamikaze pilots. IF the US had changed their posture from arrogant to modest during the communication and had offered to listen to the conditions that Japan had at the time, the bombs would have not been needed. The solution to a problem is sometimes just a matter of knowing and willing to say things in a more effective way. A mediator was extremely needed.
Peace can not be obtained with force. Force, war, fighting, bombing, etc… do not equal Peace.
The only way to stop a war is to look for a resolution or agreement that both sides support. Not necessarily backing down from showing military power, but to communicate effectively. It's like a relationship. If there is not an effective communication between the couple, the disagreements or fighting will not stop.
The US didn't know of Japans conditions. They didn't even give them an opportunity to state them. If someone told you to do something in a 'demanding' way, would you do it?
I wouldn't. Even if that person was rich, powerful or influential. We all deserve some kind of respect.Posted by: Anonymousinnocent lives lost and japan were weak anyway
It was wrong to drop the bomb because Japan weren't going to go on for much longer and were going to surrender soon. I think the Americans should have just held in there and fought like men. Also i think it was not right to drop the bomb because it killed too many innocent people. War should only be between soldiers, they should not have brought the innocent civilians into this war they were not a part of. They should have just dropped normal bombs on the army bases and government buildings. So that was unfair and should not have happened
finally the fact that they have now brought this monstrous bomb into the world and will end the world probably if this bomb is used again.Posted by: zahrachaloxxxProportionality: does it mean anything?
Under the Laws of War: proportionality, where the use of force does not exceed the means necessary to bring about a Just end to the conflict; the use of a weapon of mass destruction taking the lives of 2000,000 men women and children - primarily civilian non-combatants - is beyond any comprehension of a Just War use of deadly force. To say that the use of the atomic bomb is justified in communicating to the enemy that we will vaporize all those you cherish and defend, if you do not surrender; is no different than Lt. Calley slaughtering the men, women and children at My Lai, other than the atomic bombs were 8,999 time worse. Trying to justify an atrocity after the fact, never appears to be rational. Collateral damage is not a Target. Shame on those responsible.
James Paul Wainscoat. Former member of the 101st Airborne Division, 1st 327 Infantry, B Company Scout sniper, two Bronze Stars with valor, Army Commendation with valor, Purple Heart, and a Combat Infantryman's Badge. 1966-67 VietnamPosted by: ScoatNo, the use of atomic bombs in Japanese was wrong.
Japan was ready to surrender and had begun negotiations to end the war prior to the dropping of the bombs. Russia was entering the war, which was equally devastating to the Japanese. They were ready to end the war. The purpose of dropping the bomb appears to be as much as impressing the Russians as it was to getting the Japanese to stop fighting. It must also be understood that Japan's economy was completely destroyed with imports completely shut off and thus, had no capacity to continue fighting.
Posted by: R43ShepHELLS NAW DOG
The amount of damage and civilian casualties the atomic bomb should not have been dropped. They caused way to much damage and innocent civilians were killed and harmed. No matter what, they should have come up with a better idea or at least demonstrated the power of the bombs in a secure area to get a surrender.
Posted by: AnonymousIt was an excessive, unnecessary move by the U.S government.
Aside from the fact that America were on the advance in the Pacific theater by Summer 1945, the dropping of both bombs caused a completely unnecessary number of civilian casualties. The drops, in my opinion were a show of power, designed to strike fear in the hearts of Japan's military elite. If others believe they were a revenge attack for the bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941, a nuclear response, particularly on the fairly unimportant cities (strategically speaking) of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is incredibly excessive.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat the US did was horrific and wrong
.The radiation caused the homes of all organisms that lived there to become uninhabitable which is one reason why they shouldn’t have used it. Real Estate in Japan is already hard to buy. Making living space in Japan even harder to come by would only cause inflation on the price of property and cause species indigenous to Japan to go extinct. Also, if it were an invasion, it wouldn’t have been all innocent civilians including women and children being killed, it would’ve been soldiers, equipped for war, ready to die for their country, being killed.
Posted by: lana2811It was unnecessary
Japan was a falling nation. They were low on resources, only had their home island, and their cities were burned to crisps from the firebombing before the bomb. There was no need for invasion anyway, we should have just stopped advancing. They hit us once at pearl harbor, but not again! We hit them so hard, we pushed them across the ocean and took all of their territories. Their civilians wanted to stop, but were oppressed by the military. They were too afraid to take action, and our country knew that. The island has few natural resources, they lacked war materials such as petroleum, metals, rubber, and guns. All we had to do was wait, they would run out of material if we had waited. They say hitler murdering jews was horrible, then the dropping of not one but two atomic bombs on populated cities full of civilians not soldiers. Some people say." Who would you have sacrificed, the few or the many(the Japanese civilians or the us military)?" I say, there is a third option, just stop. They were in no position to attack anyone. Their navy, decimated, their air force, outmatched, their army/marines, too few to do much. They didn't even have any superweapons, the Nazis, v2 missiles, the us, the atomic bomb, Japan, nothing. It was like hitting a wounded deer with .50 cal. The atom bomb and invasion, just unnecessary. -my name is jared crummey, I am 12 years old and I believe that the atomic bomb was unnecessary.
Posted by: AnonymousMy opinions on the atomic bombing
The amount of innocent people that died is atrocious, fair enough the prime minister didn't back down along with his troops but that doesn't include everyone, I think America should of thought about it by saying if they were in that position would they like it? But I guess I'm 50/50 really
Posted by: AnonymousNot this time.
A war should be between militaries, not between peoples. The US' actions of dropping nuclear explosives on two civilians locations, (which would have been even more populated had the weather conditions been right) were atrocious to say the least. This, coupled with the fire bombing on civilian locations, shows a blatant disregard for any sort of politeness that had once existed in warfare. If they did not have the gut to actually assault Japan in a conventional war method, they should not have gotten involved in Japan's foreign affairs to begin with. Crimes against humanity, these were.
Posted by: AnonymousUnfair warfare count
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, they mainy destroyed U.S. Infultry and War Machinery. When the U.S. Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we weren't aiming for any near by military bases or political capitals, no we wanted to hit Japan where it hurt, We killed 10's of thousands of inoccent civilians in the span of a few seconds and even more over the next weeks with each bomb.
Posted by: AnonymousPolitics above value of the moral dignity of human life ?
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the united states where a decision kept from the nation and devised in the upper quarters of the military and governmental offices therefore as most decisions made under such circumstances without the consent of the people do not end well or at the least do not have a aim to benefit anyone other than the political office and prideful power seeking representatives of the nation the innocent civilians of these cities were not thought of , the individuals in the united states were not thought of, but rather the message the u.S could send to the communist world and the fear it could instill in the opposing nations was thought of and was really the whole point of these bombings a historian once said on the subject: "The bombings were just icing on the cake" and the truth that we all know is that Japan was ready to surrender at any moment it was not a question of weather Japan would surrender or not but a question of how long it would take for them to do so and if there is anyone who believes that sending a political message through the bloody genocide of innocent civilians is worth doing so then you , my friend, have the heart of a politician :)
Posted by: AnonymousThe bombs dropped were unjustified!
Do you Americans REALLY want to know why America dropped the A-bomb. It was because they wanted to make Russia angry and show off their weapon arsenal. So none of this, they attacked us first and so we must bomb them with a weapon that can destroy the world, rubbish! The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified!
Posted by: eperksyJapan was used as an opportunity to test the power of the A-Bomb
The US had no right in dropping these bombs. Okay, so let's say they warned the Japanese before hand, but many countries say this like this to scare their enemies or just without thinking. The only reason they dropped the bombs was to see what they could do. Before this, no one had used a nuclear weapon in actual battle, and the US saw this as an opportunity to test the bombs in real combat. Many civilians died, and many more afterwards from the radiation. I remember reading that both America and Japan did not want an invasion, t may have been possible for negotiations to be done. Yes Japan did many terrible things during World War II, but it is not necessary to use such inhumane tactics.
Posted by: Anonymousthere were over 200000 japanes deths
the japeniese were going to give up soon most of the millitary officals didnt support their leader. the japanes just didnt want to agree to an unconditional surrender if we hadnt been so hard headed there would have been a more peaceful resolve.
Posted by: AnonymousHow could it be?
The bomb ended the war. I know... Marvellous. But it gave many innocent people horrible deaths. I had a friend who died of leukemia recently, I don't wish that on anyone. To see friends and family suffer is an appalling thing no matter where in the world you are. It may have saved lives, but these were military lives, the lives of people who had had a chance to live a little (ok, so most might be in their 20s, at least they aren't 4 -- or under!). I know what the Japanese did to the Chinese with the rape and so on, but I challenge someone who thinks that makes it ok to go to a grieving mother who lost her 2 year old child to radiation poisoning and tell her that her child deserved to die because he/ she was a rapist. Anyone who can go to a grieving mother and tell them that the death of their child was justified is insensitive at the least. But it has happened and all we can do is learn and make sure it NEVER happens again, and that means that we all need to stop waving around our nuclear programs and our nuclear weapons and shake hands and apologise then maybe we can get along better.
Posted by: AnonymousWaste of Human Life, and Go Green!
Japan was ready to surrender, there were options the US didnt consider before they blew 2 cities to thy kingdom come. 1. The Japanese leader dude would have surrendered if the US let him pretended hes still in charge, like a figurehead sort of. 2. If they threatened Japan with the soviet rum drinkers, then they might have surrendered. Also, around 80,000 civilians were killed, some of which are not japanese.
Posted by: AnonymousHow can it be justified?
Contrary to popular belief amongst some Americans, the use of atomic bombs to "save lives" is in fact the revisionist history. Nowhere but in America do people get taught that atomic bombs were used to save lives. I see it as an attempt by some Americans to justify an atrocious war crime committed. Not even President Truman thought about "saving lives" when he made the decision. The use of atomic weaponry on civilian cities had no military significance whatsoever in ending a war that was already over. Mislead by the impact of the atomic bombings, not many Americans are even aware that the Soviet Union entered the Pacific War - arguably the reason why Japan surrendered exactly on August 15, 1945 and not sooner. The flaw of the argument for atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that it relies on the fact that a US invasion was the only other alternative to end WW2. This begs the question, was a US invasion necessary? With no navy, no air force, their armies losing in China, their people at home starving to death, American bombers ruling their skies, an effective American sea blockade in place, the Soviet Union having just declared war on them, and with martial law imposed, Japan was essentially defeated by August 1945. America had air superiority over Japanese skies and sea superiority in Japanese waters. Japan didn't even have the ability to shoot down the lone unguarded bombers that carried the atomic bombs. Whether the US invaded it or not, Japan's surrender would've been inevitable. Without using atomic bombs or invading Japan, Truman could've: 1. Waited until the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 9 - Because of the close proximity of the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific War and the nuclear bombings, it is unclear over which one of these had the biggest impact to Japan's surrender. It is quite possible that it was purely the Soviet Union's entrance into the Pacific War that got the Japanese surrender when you compare the date Japan surrendered (August 15) to the date the second atomic bomb was dropped (August 9). This lengthy timeframe may suggest that atomic bombs did not play a key role in the surrender. By contrast, the Soviets invaded Manchuria on August 9, and by August 15, occupied it and threatened the Japanese home islands. 2. Waited for the US sea blockade to end the war - A sea blockade was more effective than a US invasion to end WWII. The Japanese military were eagerly anticipating a US invasion so they could inflict American casualties. If the US publicly denied an invasion of Japan it would mean no American casualties and would signal to Japan that defeat was inevitable. The US Navy was against an invasion and strongly backed a sea blockade for this very reason. Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz and Gen. Carl Spaatz of the USAAF believed that in the event of this scenario, Japanese leaders would ultimately give in. (Remember, Japan had no navy and no air force to relieve the blockade). 3. Given a public message to Japan saying that the imperial family would be saved from war crimes trials - The Japanese military resisted primarily to defend the imperial family from post-war prosecution. Japanese military leaders believed the Allies' "unconditional surrender" meant that the imperial family would be powerless and face the court. This was obviously not the case, but Truman failed to tell Japan this. Gen. Douglas MacArthur knew the importance of the imperial family to the Japanese military and therefore urged Truman to let Japan know about the fate of their imperial family if Japan accepted the unconditional surrender. If Truman were truly humane and serious about "saving lives" he would've tried these alternatives before resorting to nuclear bombs. This is why I believe Truman purposely used nuclear weapons to intimidate the Soviet Union. It wasn't a coincidence that they were dropped around the same time the Soviet Union entered the Pacific War. I hardly think deliberately destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki's hospitals, universities, high schools, primary schools, kindergartens, temples and residential suburbs was the difference between winning or losing WW2. At least with conventional bombing, bombers aim for specific military-related targets (like a barracks, munitions factory, depot etc.). If the atomic bombs were dropped in the frontlines it wouldn't of been such a big issue. The regrettable aspects of the atomic bombings were that it was militarily unnecessary and used on civilians. Many Americans lack the sympathy because their country was the perpetrator and not the victim. If Nazi Germany used an atomic bomb on Boston, there is no doubt that Americans would condemn that act and call it a war crime - even if the Germans argued that "it saved lives". Nuking civilian cities is classified as a war crime, even back in 1945. The US signed the Hague Convention in 1907 regarding the rules of war and the bombing of civilians. It was against international law to deliberately target non-combatant civilians, and kill them by any method. The atomic bombings resulted in the murder of 250,000 non-combatants en masse, and the US therefore violated the Hague Convention and broke an international treaty. It is never justified to break an international treaty that your country had signed and pledged to abide to.
Posted by: AnonymousDropping the atomic bombs on Japan sacrificed too many innocent lives.
The fact that the U.S. government would attack innocent civilians on an enormous scale, due to the fact that American soldiers were killed, is ridiculous. Constituents should not be harmed for the work of their government, no matter where they live. This showed that Americans think that their lives are more precious than those of other nations, which is very tragic. The after-effects lasted for decades, and the action of dropping atomic bombs on huge Japanese cities was inexcusable.
Posted by: NineLester37No to using nuclear weapons on civilians
Nuclear weapons shouldn't have been used on the civilians of Japan, if they were going to use bombs then they should have used the weapons on armed military. I used to think the bombing was justified to end the war and save allied lives, but I now think using weapons on unarmed civilians is wrong. It could be seen as an atrocity.
Posted by: AnonymousDeath. Misery. Disaster.
The Atomic Bomb was a brilliant work of scientific achievement, but it was an unreasonable action. President Truman was pressured into using the bomb; the country demanding vengeance. The after math alone should have been enough to stop any progress in the nuclear weapon area, but a second bomb was dropped. Both these monstrous attacks destroyed lives and ruined future lives as well, as the radiation lasted well after the explosion was over. Victims numbered over thousands. People were permanently scarred. The Atomic Bomb was a crime against humanity.
Posted by: AnonymousNo they should not have dropped the bomb, there were other solutions!
Millions of women who were exposed and survived the nuclear radiation of the bombings latter had babies with multiple deformities such as cleft lips, extra limps, and multiple tumors. I believe that no mother or woman should have to give birth to or raise a child which has been physically abused by military warfare.
Posted by: AnonymousJust a terrible thing to do
Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were lost for no good reason. Where as the attack on pearl harbor was a military attack, the atomic bombing was just slaughter of innocent people. If America really cared, they would strive for peace, through thick and thin, but instead they decided to drop an experimental weapon and ended up incinerating an unbelievable amount of people. Shame on the America of the past.
Posted by: AnonymousNot completely convinced either way, leaning towards no.
I do not believe the atomic bomb was completely justified in a fewer respects, but not enough to say a definite no. First of all, I believe that the target of the bomb was atrocious. To drop an atomic bomb on two populated civilian cities was an unprecedented act of terrorism, whether it was necessary to force a surrender or not. When Japan attacked us, their target was a strategic military establishment, the main idea being to cripple our naval forces, giving them the upper hand in the Pacific battle. Civilians were definitely killed, but that was not the goal of the attack.The target of the a-bomb should have been some form of military establishment. This would've been completely justified, as well tactically advantageous in the event that Japan did not proceed to surrender after the bombing. All I know is that I personally cannot condone terrorism, however necessary it may seem to be at the time. That is not the act of a trustworthy administration.
Posted by: tacetJACKThe majority of population in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were women and children.
Since the men went to war and joined the army, the women and children were left behind in the country. Those people were innocent and harmless toward the war. They couldn't fight. So was it fair to dropped an atomic bomb on them? The bomb didn't just caused people to died and the place to be destroyed, later on radiation diseases affected the Japanese people for a long period of time which was the reason for more deaths. After the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in August 6th, 1945 within minutes 70,000 people were dead. 5 years later in 1950, the number of people who had died from the Hiroshima bomb had gone up to 200 000. In the humanity aspect, this was not the right thing to do. The Americans shouldn't be justify for their action.
Posted by: AnonymousThis is terrorism at it's finest.
Killing innocent people cannot be justified in any way. Americans knew it, this is the bomb that has great power and dropping it would kill hundreds of thousands of people. This was barbaric act and I hope it will never happen again.
I hope the people responsible for this horrible crime cannot sleep now.Posted by: AnonymousNot in a million years
America should never had dropped those bombs. They didn't save any lives what so ever. They killed between 150,000–246,000 people. If they wanted to stop the war they should have just surrendered, but they wouldn't do that because they would look weak and defenceless.
America dropped the bombs for two reasons:
1) They wanted to look big and scary to the Soviet Union, so they didn't attack them
2) So they could state their authority within the world
Nothing good came of the attackPosted by: AnonymousIt was a mass murder on an already defeated country
I think the question is not WHY the US chose to drop an atomic bomb, the question is WHY the city of Nagasaki and its civilians were chosen to be the victims.
The people killed by the atomic bombs were not fanatical soldiers or kamikaze pilots. The people killed by the atomic bombs were the elderly in hospitals, students in universities, teenagers in high schools, children in primary schools, toddlers in kindergartens, and mothers and wives in suburban homes.
To target such people is fundamentally a war crime. The German and Japanese military officers who murdered Polish, Czech, Russian, Chinese, Filipino, and Malaysian civilians were hanged at the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials. If war was not supposed to be fair, if war was not supposed to be hell, if civilians were not supposed to be innocent, then why did we hang those German and Japanese military officers on the basis that they committed "war crimes"? By using weapons of mass destruction on innocent civilians, the US committed a blatant war crime. It is hypocritical to suggest that Germans and Japanese killing civilians is wrong, but Americans killing civilians is OK.Posted by: AnonymousToo Many Deaths
There were many civilians that were killed in this attack. We have fought against barbarians and ruthless leaders but we took the same course in dealing with our enemies. This bombing showed that we are no better than the people we fight against.
How can we condemn others for being brutal but we are just as bad if not worse. We cannot continue with being hypocrites, it will turn the world against us.Posted by: afugal15Never do revenge.
I'm sure alot of people have heard this sentence before. Yes, I belive the Japanese were in-human, but some did not even want to start the war! Many commoners lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and *they* wanted peace. *They* wanted everyone to stop...but they had no say! It has indeed ended WW2, but the many people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered because of the destruction and the radiation from the bombs. It wasn't the Japanese's fault that the majority of the British was not well trained and was coward in the fight in Singapore.
Posted by: AnonymousMurder is Unjust
No attempt to get Japanese to surrender. This is just plain mass murder. I believe that they could have at least tried to get them to surrender, and if not... Take other measures. They did not try to negotiate as they should have. Tell them they could keep their emperor. Explain into detail what they could keep, so on....
Posted by: AnonymousNuclear war is never the proper action.
Killing people in mass numbers without even giving them a chance to defend themselves is wrong. Killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children is never acceptable.
Posted by: FithBooshIt killed innocent people
Although civilians were fighting, thousands of innocent Japanese women and children were killed by the bombing which was wrong. Furthermore, it could have been avoided and the USA could have waited for the USSR to join the war which would have undoubtedly saved Japanese lives. I feel very strongly regarding the Truman's mistake and I hope it never happens again.
Posted by: AnonymousAct of terrorism
Title 18 of the United States Code defines international terrorism as: "activities that...involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum."
The simple fact that these bombings targeted two cities and not military bases, killing this way almost exclusively innocent civilians, makes these bombings clear acts of terrorism of incredible dimensions, many times worse than those experienced by USA during 9/11.Posted by: AnonymousAmerica had other choices.
To say that dropping a nuclear bomb on these two islands was a last resort and 'the only way out' is just stupid. Even the doctor who was on the Manhattan project didn't agree that we should even have nuclear weapons such as this? And in America developing this we opened other countries to the arms race and possibly the outcome of nuclear war. You could say this stupid decision could lead to another world war if someone wanted it too.
Posted by: AnonymousUNITED STATES WAS WRONG !
I disagree with President Truman dropping the bomb in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I disagree with President Truman dropping the bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the dropping of the bombs by the United States killed countless innocent children, women, and men. There were many other tactics the United States could have used to make Japan surrender. I do not think that bombing the two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of Japan did not make them surrender, because when the United States dropped the first bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima the Japanese government did not surrender. Also nor did the Japanese surrender after the second bomb was dropped in the Japanese city of Nagasaki, dropping the bombs on the Japan did not benefit anyone what so ever, the only thing it did was kill innocent people who had nothing to do with it.
The United States dropped the bomb on two cities with no military bases, unlike Japan invaded and attacked Pearl Harbor, which had military bases. When Japan attacked the Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, United States, killing 2,400 American was also horrible, but United States killed 100 times more people. In fact the atomic bombs killed about 3,000 Japanese Americans and 20,000 Koreans. The attack of Pearl Harbor only killed 2,400. The atomic bombs killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor did. The decision to use the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was selfish and ignorant.Posted by: AnonymousI oppose the U.S. dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it led to deaths of thousands of innocent people.
I believe the U.S. was not justified in dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it caused massive amounts of destruction and deaths. Thousands of innocent people, including women and children lost their lives and families. The after effects of those bombings are felt even today. Further, it has opened up a completely new avenue for fighting nuclear wars.
Posted by: ReIIIyf3Innocent people killed for no reason
80,000 people were killed instantly.
90% of all doctors and nurses in Hiroshima were killed or injured.
Japanese were on the verge of surrender without using the bomb.
It would have been difficult to justify not using it after such vast financial investment.
Scientists failed to mention the long-term dangers of Radiation.Posted by: AnonymousIt was a Terror Attack, America wanted to create a Terror in the Heart of Japan and force them to surrender
No matter how much we justify, it was still a Terror attack to create terror in the heart of Japan population. This attack made a point to the world that America will go any extent and cross any moral line to win the war. America could have easily won over japan through conventional warfare but yet they chose this route of attacking City population which was an civilians Target. Justifying this kind of attack only make us to repeat this kind of Genocide again. As a human being I can never agree with any justification from any one for this kind of Terror Attack.
Posted by: zisskhanThe Americans had no right to kill Japanese civilians
The Americans were not able to control who the bomb affected. They should never have dropped it when they couldn't control the effects. It was also wrong for them to use Japan to show Russia how strong they were.
Posted by: AnonymousIt is not justifieed
They wanted to show their superiority over other nations and show they had higher tech. Japan was already defeated when the bombs were launched:. They did not had army or weapons left and the bombs caused not only millions of deaths but also an enviromental effect tahat remained for decades making health problems increase A lot
Posted by: AnonymousThe Darkest Day of American History
America was not justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Firstly, when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, it didn't cause the Japanese to surrender - and neither did the Nagasaki bomb. What did cause the Japanese to surrender was Russia's betrayal of Japan by declaring war on them. Because of this, the a-bombs were therefore an unnecessary demonstration of horror.
Also, those of you who state that the A-bombs saved 500,000 american lives are wrong wrong wrong. The original number estimated by army and navy generals was 40,000 - but in true American fashion, this number was exaggerated more than 12 times over.
Furthermore, America were most definitely not justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as they were not willing to allow Japan surrender unless it was unconditional. Japan's one request was that their monarchy, their emperor, was saved. But due to America's addiction to cramming their opinions down others throats, they didn't allow this.
Finally, if you are still not convinced, let me ask you this:
Had it been Germany instead of America as the country to drop those bombs, do you think that there would be 56% of people saying that it was a justified act?
Those responsible would have been tried and hanged for their actions - so why weren't the Americans?Posted by: AnonymousMy rantings! :)
Yes, Japan was not playing by the rules of war, but two wrongs never make a right. No matter what good could have come out of the dropping of the atomic bomb, killing innocent civilians was not justifiable, and it never will be. America justified itself by saying that it would save the lives of our boys. What we forgot is that our boys were fighting in this war because of the horror we experienced at Pearl Harbor, where soldiers and sailors, belonging to a country then on peace terms with Japan, were blown to bits. Those Americans that died were innocent, the remaining were horrified. And what do we do with that just anger? At the end, instead of negotiating peace, we demand unconditional surrender. Japan refused. Historians sneer at Japan for not surrendering sooner, but it would be suicide itself to surrender to a country that granted its defeated enemy no certainty of how it was to be dealt with. America did not back down on its terms. Unconditional surrender was what we required, and we would take no less. So even though we were justified in partaking in war with Japan, we used that justification to do wrong: (1) demand unconditional surrender, and because they would not accept, (2) drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We justified it then and still try to justify the obvious wrong of vaporizing thousands of innocent men, women, and children, including 23 American prisoners of war. This is not morally acceptable, and how we try to clean our consciences of the blood bath is pathetic. Common sense points out to the facts that backup this view… Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of limited military value; civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima SIX to one. The radiation effects are still suffered TODAY, not only causing Leukemia and other diseases, but leaving land infertile and unless for the Japanese people. The dropping of the atomic bomb was completely and thoroughly unjustified and horrendous.
Posted by: RachelDNO!
Because the Americans should've fought the war like real men and women. Just because they have this fancy dancy bomb that can kill bunches of people, doesn't mean they get to sit around and use it. They should get off their lazy bums and fight the war like the Japanese would.
Posted by: AnonymousAffected the children of the future.
The US was not justified in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the radiation affected the people of then and the children born in the future. Many people were killed instantly but others developed cancer and leukemia. Babies were born with serious health defects because their mothers were exposed to radiation. The bombs also damaged the environment and the results are still very hard for us to clean up.
Posted by: AnonymousWar isn't justified.
Killing someone is wrong. Period. I do not say this from religious beliefs, I say this from personal belief. Think of everything you have done in your life. EVERYTHING. Now think of how the pull of a trigger could erase it all. Now imagine this done to thousands of people every day. Now think of their families, of the dead children. War is wrong in itself.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, it was not justified.
Who do they think they are, dropping murderous, nuclear weapons into cities full of innocent men, women and children?! In my opinion, no reason (and let's be reasonable) in the world can justify the planned murder of thousands and thousands of civilians, just to see "if a bomb actually worked." Yes, there had to be an end to the war; but what was America fighting with Allies for in the first place? The end of the unnecessary and unjustified killings of Jewish people, right? So what makes it okay for them to go and unnecessarily kill 80, 000 people with the flames and flash of the bomb? And then leave another 70, 000 injured? And all in less than a second...
Even if dropping the bomb was the only way to stop the war (which it was not) the least the Americans could have done was chosen a less civilized and a more military-related area. That way, the death rates of innocent victims would have been lower; and by attacking a military base, it would have caused some sort of fluctuation in the war.
The least America can do now is accept it was wrong, and learn from its mistakes. There were so many other options, and yet America went for the one that said, "Kill as many people as you like for no justified reason, just to make sure money does not go to waste." I mean, what takes more precedence: money or an innocent life? (And your response to this will be impacted by your morality...)Posted by: AnonymousNo
many people. However, all war is unethical and making a decision involving its trajectory is thus picking the best of multiple terrible options that nearly always involve people dying. World War II was a war unlike anything we understand today, because the only way to win was to destroy the enemy's means to produce tanks and planes. In the 1940's we did not have smart bombs that could instantly pick out a manufacturing plant and eliminate it without harming innocent civilians. So tragically
Posted by: AnonymousThe targeting of civilians in war is wrong; the use of nuclear weapons set a terrible precedent, and contrary to popular belief, this decision did not save more lives than it took.
Japan was willing to negotiate an end to conflict before the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, which undercuts at its root the much-repeated argument that the bomb prevented a bloody invasion that would have cost thousands of American lives; Japan was not necessarily willing to surrender unconditionally, but there might have been room to achieve a reasonable accommodation, and one should have been sought before so much as considering the use of an awful new weapon on civilian population centers. Bombing Nagasaki was even more unjust, since the devastation of Hiroshima was plainly evident. The slow deaths from radiation poisoning these acts inflicted upon innocent civilians were horrific, possibly even more so than the initial blasts. If the U.S. is to become respected in other cultures, and thus safer, it must begin questioning its facile answers to moral questions about its choices. This issue is a case in point.
Posted by: M4I4cFeIineThe USSR Was Growing
With 3/4 of Tokyo leveled and Japan losing the war why would we use an atom bomb? Well... The USSR was growing quickly and the Allies could already tell that after World War II the battle would become about political ideology. With the USSR close to developing nuclear weapons the US had to show it's power and prove to the USSR that we could fight. Japan was a good place to show our power and brutality. I mean why else would we drop the bombs on a country losing the war. Japan was also recording record poverty and starvation rates and quickly losing support at home.
Posted by: indieboyIt was not justified at all.
Many of the points given are that the bomb saved more than it killed, and that more civilians would've been killed had it not been for the atomic bomb. Well, if the US had dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, the war would have already ended. Why must they drop another on Nagasaki? Wouldn't that be considered "mass killing" of civilians, which are against international law, in "crimes against humanity"?
Also, atomic bombs have lasting effects. Radiation levels caused deformities, disabilities, and more. Cancer is rampant in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not just in the adults, but also in the children. How could that ever be justified?Posted by: AnonymousIt was a horrific tragedy that was not needed. The US just wanted to try out their new bomb.
It was a disgusting evil thing to do. SO many innocent people were killed (approx. 5,000,000). It was ridiculously unfair and the US just wanted to try out their new bomb. Although they claim it was to benefit the war effort, it was unjustified, unfair and not proportionate to what was needed.
Posted by: AnonymousRevenge is a bad thing
I mean yes there had to be an end to the war but I feel like there was a better way of doing that. They could have figured out something other than blowing up Japan. There is no way that some one can honestly think that it is okay to kill thousands of innocent women, children. People. They were all people. And the U.S. ended their lives just because they could. Innocent people didn't need to die to end the war. It just wasn't right and it wasn't necessary
Posted by: AnonymousThis was an unfortunate choice that felt right at the time, but was a devastating way to end a war.
This is a tough question to answer. There are many ways that you can look at the issue, you can say that dropping those bombs saved lives by ending the war. You can say that dropping the bomb saved more lives than it cost, but I don't believe that to be the case. So many people were killed or scarred for life by those bombs that I think it would have been better to find another way to end the war. Sure some more lives might have been lost in the process, but probably fewer than were lost by those bombs, and fewer people would have been physically scarred by the process as well.
Posted by: MariaRIt Was a War Crime
No, the use of atomic bombs, plus the firebombing of Tokyo, was one of the low points in human history. While we bemoan Hitler's actions in Nazi Germany, ours were just as bad. Success in the Pacific front was not critical, Pearl Harbor was no 9/11 and the victims were the Japanese population itself who had no control over the government's military decisions. It was simply a holocaust - it was a war crime.
Posted by: AnonymousI don't think the U.S. was justified
So many innocent people died and many had to live with cancer or diseases for the rest of their lives and it is not fair, even though it meant the end of the war. Innocent kids and women died and that's why I don't think that the U.S. was justified for dropping the atomic bombs.
Posted by: AnonymousNo justification for the bombing.
We could have ended the war in which a bomb was dropped but didn't kill as many innocent people. Japans dictator could've agreed on something else like sorts like the slave trade just something that doesn't harm people. Please help the people who are up there in heaven and didn't get to confess before dying.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Nuclear Bombing of Japan had no military gain
The deployment of the nuclear bombs was said to be a military action yet when dropped they were deployed in areas that had no military significance. In Hiroshima, the military to civilian ratio was 1:5 meaning that while it did have military occupation it was not the most significant threat to America.
With this being said there is also the fact that the bombings were purely a show of power and a way for America to justify spending $2 billion dollars on the Manhattan Project. Even the very scientist who created this bomb warned against its use and many objectified its deployment.
This brings me to my final point which is that the bomb was created by America in response to knowledge that Germany was creating their own nuclear weapon. American then set out in order to protect itself by creating such a weapon which would deter a nuclear attack by Germany. Unfortunately, Germany would fall before the completion of the project so a weapon of defense became a weapon of offense against an enemy who had no nuclear potential.Posted by: AnonymousWhy did they have to drop it on the cities where many innocent people lived.
If they just wanted to show what they had and surprise Japanese, why didn't they drop it on a place where civilian people were not living, like military bases. And some people here say that they dropped two bombs because Japanese did not surrender, and they warned Japanese before they dropped them. Really? They only waited for three days after the first one. And they only gave Japanese vague information, like "it will cause total destruction." How could they know that it was atomic bomb because American had already bombed Japanese cities with napalm for more than 200 times. You think they could imagine a worse situation?
They just dropped the bombs because they wanted to threaten the Soviet Union and wanted to know what effect the bombs have on people. Japanese innocent people were just used.Posted by: pikahika0531Franklin's death before giving the order.
Since Roosevelt died before being confronted with that decision, ANY ANSWER will be pure speculation and opinion. However, based on what I know of FDR from many historical sources, I suspect that he, like most, would have not wanted to, but I think, would most certainly have come to the same conclusion as did Truman.j3h.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Question of Morality in the Dropping of the Atomic Bombs
Within seconds the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima vaporized 70,000 citizens. The next dropped in Nagasaki vaporizing 80,000. Even more died after the fact form burns and radiation poison. There is a question of morality to be asked here. Was it completely necessary to drop bombs that would result in the death of thousands? Was there no other way to end the war than this? I urge you to look at the facts and show the people what it is we have chosen to do. Show the images of the burn victims and wreckage that was left in the wake of this bomb. “Necessity” seems to be a word places on this incident to justify the actions chosen.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, anyone who says otherwise is a horrible human being that doesn't want to admit that the United States is not a force for good.
Prior to reading some of these arguments, I was honestly willing to believe that Americans were at least somewhat remorseful for the horrible crime that was the dropping of the Atomic bomb. Wow, have you people ever proven me wrong. It appears that not only do Americans believe that this disgusting act was justified, but that it was the right thing to do. You disgust me. Children, I repeat, innocent children, were butchered. Many of these children died slow, horrible deaths. I can only imagine the outrage that would come from the citizens of the United States if New York had been bombed, and instead you were the ones who had to watch the skin melt off of your children's faces. I even read one comment stating that dropping the atomic bomb was a good thing, because it allowed people to see the effects. To whomever said that, screw you, you are a despicable human being. The United States is an evil Juggernaut that uses their powerful military to rob poor, desolate countries of what little wealth and oil they have. Your nation is evil, accept it, and maybe use your voices to try and change it. Your ignorance will not stop the mass murders committed to this day in the name of American "freedom."
Posted by: AnonymousCivilians had nothing to do with the War.
The bombs' dropping was a disparate response to the attack on Pearl Harbor. I think the U.S. was testing its new technology and presenting the new 'cock' to the world, claiming many innocent lives in this process...
Posted by: AlyhellThe Japanese were not as strong as the US claimed they were.
They were on their last legs after years and years of war. They couldn’t have carried on much longer; it was only a matter of time before they surrendered. Maybe the Americans deliberately overstated Japan’s ability to continue fighting to try and justify using the bombs.
A better solution would have been to invite the Japanese to watch a demonstration of them dropping the bomb into the ocean so that they could see how powerful it was and how devastating the effect would be. This way, Japan could have been given the chance the surrender before they dropped the bomb and there would have been no casualties on either side. If Japan chose to ignore America’s threat and not surrender, they could drop the bomb and have a justified reason for it; that they gave Japan the chance to surrender before using the bomb.Posted by: Anonymouspeople are people no matter what nation there from were are all human
Many people are misunderstanding the power of the atomic bomb. Still, to this very day, people are dying from radiation in forms of cancer and disease. Even the American government knows what they did was wrong and have tried to cover up the intensity of their actions by denying it, and undermining its severity. We fail to speak about this in classrooms and in the public in general. We are the only nation in the whole entire world who have resorted to such monstrosity. We make a big deal out of 9/11 and yes as tragic as it was, we feel a more passionate connection to this issue because it happened on our soil, hurting our people. But the atomic bomb was far worse. In fact, it is one of the most ugliest things that humans have done to one another. Shortly after the drop of the bomb, instantly hundreds of people were melted on the spot. But it is the survivors that suffered the most. Many of them have had bits and pieces of their skin melted off with no hospitals to attend to, no family, no money, absolutely nothing. Many have described it as a living hell. Maggots and insects have been known to lay eggs on their wounds. All of these details are just one hundredth of the gruesome reality of it all. To those who say "yes?" To the justification of Japan without much of a reasoning other than "because they attacked us firs?" Should read or see the movie "grave of the fireflies?" Or other forms of media on this horrendous act of humanity and educate themselves on just how much suffering was caused.
Posted by: amv12722No it was not a good idea
Dropping the atomic bomb was a very stupid idea because it killed hundreds of innocent children and adults. It also ruined the homes and villages of hundred of survivors. Even though it ended the war, at the same time it ended hundreds of lives. And also ruined 16 square miles of land.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Greatest Act of Modern Terrorism to date
Regardless of anything being said, what America did was terrorism. So many of you come up with the argument that essentially all's fair in love and war and that they spared more lived than they killed. Are you even considering what it would be like if your family were those civilian's? I'm born and raised in America and I'm not afraid to take off that blindfold and see the hellish nature American's confuse for freedom or patriotism. It's all ridiculous and keep in mind that Pearl Harbor was directed to military personnel and the bombing of Hiroshima was directed to civilians. It's disgusting how many people are willing to defend atrocities like this.
Posted by: AnonymousIt was not a justifiable act!
The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justifiable act by the US. The radiation the bombing produced affected the people of then and children born in the future. Many people were killed instantly but others developed cancer and leukemia. Babies were born with serious health defects because their mothers were exposed to the radiation. The bombs also damaged the environment and as a result the soil still contains radiation which affects the growth of produce and other agricultural aspects.
Posted by: luanait was too cruel
Well in my opinion I think that even though the 2 bombs stopped the ww2, it was still too harsh on the Japanese due to the fact that a lot of innocent people died and the country had a major loss. The atomic bombs are not a toy to play with, they are very dangerous and I think that dropping them on Japan wasn't the best idea, it erased half of the area and played a major role in peoples lives. Unlike other weapons, atomic bombs cause horrifying outcomes that can last for years...
Posted by: AnonymousCausing civilian deaths and generating another war is wrong-doing
Due to the fact that the United States had just been bombed and the Japanese agreed to surrender in only three months, the United States could have saved many lives by not dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, the bomb angered Russia causing the Cold War to start. The bomb only caused unnecessary citizen deaths and a war that easily could have been prevented.
Posted by: AnonymousJapanese suffered enough
Admiral William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff: “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
Posted by: AnonymousPrime Evidence Given by Military Leaders
Testimony from the key military leaders at the time was that dropping the bombs was unnecessary. From a military point of view, the Soviet Union's entry into the war was the main determining factor. Japan was ready to negotiate peace if the Imperial figurehead could be retained.
Dwight Eisenhower: "I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' " Even Truman's chief of staff felt the same way, as well as many others at the time.Posted by: AnonymousIt's simply messed up
I read a lot about how it was justified because the bomb saved thousands of lives if the American military had invaded Japan and it probably was but I can't help but imagine how the Americans would feel if it happened to them...Then again, the 9/11 attack did happen. Attacking innocent civilians is not the way to go. Full stop.
Posted by: AnonymousInnocent people die.
Even though Pearl Harbor was wrong, we don't have the right to take our rage out on innocent people just because they're not our citizens. For instance, if we owned Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the bombing wouldn't have happened to the cities. However, the people there didn't have the choice to be born in Japan/US. It's not their fault that the Japanese government attacked Pearl Harbor. If they play dirty, that doesn't mean that we should.
Posted by: AnonymousHumanity NOT restored
Yes, yes the Japanese government had gone insane at that time. But it doesn't mean the USA had the right to just drop those two crazy weapons and kill hundreds of thousands of people. That instance gave many countries justifications to attack other countries with nuclear weapons, thus this world is full of nuclear threats.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, the U.S. was not justified in dropping the atomic bombs.
Although Japan was cruel during the war so was America. One nuclear bomb had so many effects. The bomb effected people forty years after the actual bombing. A lot of children died in the bombing, and these children had nothing to do with the war. It was an unfair attack on innocent civilians. There were a lot of side effects from the atomic bomb that can neither be ignored nor justified.
Posted by: AnonymousThe U.S. is smarter - we shouldn't have lowered down to Japan's level.
We killed a lot of innocent adults and children. The U.S. government is cold-blooded. How could they live with themselves. Just because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor doesn't mean that we had to lower ourselves down to their level. I for one am embarrassed to be a part of this cold country.
Posted by: AnonymousThey killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people
When the US dropped the first bomb, they had no idea what its effect would be. The reason they dropped it on Hiroshima was as a test because the US had not bombed Hiroshima before in previous raids so they thought that it would be a good testing place. When they dropped it they killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people who didn’t deserve to die. They were right to think that there had to be an end to the war, but dropping a weapon which had not been tested, on a city full of children and people going about their daily lives is extremely wrong. The US knew that they had won the war, and they were simply making the loss bigger and increasing the number of innocent deaths by the millions. In the end it is estimated that 2 million people died from the attacks, from the initial blasts and from radiation poisoning and cancer.
By Louis CharleyPosted by: AnonymousKill to save?!
Japan was already without resources to continue fighting the war. Yes, the military might have still determined to fight until the last Japanese dropped, but ordinary citizens, despite the propaganda that the country was winning the battles, were at last beginning to know the real situation and becoming fed up.
Only if the US and allies would save the emperor, which they did in the end, Japan would have surrendered without Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (BTW even if, and only if, Hiroshima was necessary, definitely Nagasaki was NOT)Posted by: Anonymousthe amount of damage and civilian casualties
the atomic bomb should not have been dropped. they caused way to much damage and innocent civilians were killed and harmed. no matter what, they should have come up with a better idea or at least demonstrated the power of the bombs in a secure area to get a surrender.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy was there no warning bombing
We shouldn't have involved civilian casualties. What we should've done, to show them our artillery's power was bomb any place nearby that was abandoned, showing the Japanese what would happen if they attacked us again, like a warning shot. After that, if they attacked again, we should've bombed a less populated place, so there would be less civilian damage while at the same time getting our point across.
Posted by: AnonymousInnocent people were killed.
Innocent people were killed. These were relatively untouched cities during the war. Additionally, the Japanese were already pretty much defenseless and had many defeats. We were basically kicking them when they were down. The research for this bomb equaled up to 2 billion dollars (25 billion dollars in today's economy). There are many other options America could have chosen. It's a shame that this had to happen.
Posted by: AnonymousThe US were just trying out their new weapons to show off!
Because it was a cold war, it was just about threats and propaganda, not actual fighting and so, they showed off their big bombs, saying "Look what we have, a giant nuclear bomb!" To show it worked and how much pain they could inflict on each other they did it over thousands of innocent people just to show each other who is boss.
Posted by: AnonymousI'm no expert but these are my thoughts
So you protest their regime by blowing up a part of it, most of the casualties was civilians and if you know your facts then you know how large impact on society this had. In my opinion the USA should be hold accountable for war crimes. Even if it's not considered war, but more of an act of terrorism they should as well be hold accountable for that. The reason told behind the attack on Hiroshima was told to be Perl Harbor, that day 2403 people died and almost 1200 wounded. How tragic it may be it cannot be justified by dropping nuclear bombs. The impact on society was cruel, deformed people was born and cancer was not uncommon. Generations of people died that day. Of the estimated population of 580.000 between 150.000 - 200.000 people died. It cannot be justified killing that much, wars are horrible and people die. This was not war. The solution of "revenge" for Perl harbor could have been solved in other ways. Even if then before the US were trying political solutions, but failed. A way to solve this issue with minimal casualties would be to team up with other countries ether temporary or permanent to force Japan to sign a treaty or surrender. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't do any more than killing innocent. You would think people should know better. The reason behind Japans surrender was not because of these bombs. The Russians declared war on Japan, conflicts had been made before. August 6, 1945 the first bomb were dropped, the second on three days later. The 8th of that same month the USSR(Russia) declared war on Japan. All this was long after Nazi Germany back then was defeated. Truman ordered the drop of the second bomb even though the invasion of Japan from Russia had begun. It's said Japan surrendered because of the USSR invasion. It is highly possible people were to think it was because of the bombs, many would say it was American propaganda. This is pretty much all a mess.
So the question remains...
Was the U.S. justified in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Short answer, no!
Side note, even up to today the USA cannot mind their own business. Have they ever had a successful diplomatic solution to war, that's the true question.Posted by: zinThe US was not justified in dropping the bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The US was not justified in dropping the bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the bomb killed over 100 thousand of innocent children, women, and men. The US could have used different tactics of trying to end the war in the Pacific. If you agree with the US then think if Japan dropped a bomb on the USA (or an other country) and killed innocent in the USA (or a different country) children, women, and men, who could had been your loved ones. Innocent people do not deserve to die because a government wants to rule the world.
Posted by: AnonymousAmerica Screwed Up.
It's the truth. America killed countless lives in an unnecessary way. There were many other ways to end the war such as simply waiting for the Japanese to surrender, or by taking the mainland. Either way America already had huge wins and it was obvious that they were going to win the war but they just had to take thousands of lives to feel good about themselves. Simple as that.
Posted by: AnonymousOf Course Not!
Born from a stupid macho bet with Russia, the US just wanted to use terrorism in order to scare Russia, they had no purpose, they didn't save lives, and they started the Cold War between Russia and 'MURICA. Oh well, if it kept the bountiful Capitalism in power, I suppose it was worth it.
SARCASM!!!!!Posted by: magi800Effects and Uselessness.
The bombs are still effecting people today, and Japan would have surrendered whether we dropped the bomb or not. Japan was already surrounded with American ships, and we could have easily defeated them in a much more humane way. I personally feel as though the dropping of the bomb was more about being "the first ones" rather than using it effectively for warfare.
Posted by: AnonymousWas Osama in Laden justified in orchestrating 9/11?
No one in their right mind would support the killing of innocent civilians on 9/11 on the basis of the argument that Osama Bin Laden and his cohort wanted to end the war between radical Islam and the U.S. So why is it acceptable for the U.S. to have incinerated tens of thousands of civilian men, women, children and babies to end the War, when there was a military alternative? The U.S. could have continued the war against the Japanese armed forces instead of targeting Japanese civilians. If the Japanese civilians who were killed are not deemed to have been innocent (although it is hard to see children and babies as anything but innocent) because they may have supported the Imperialist Japanese Government, then neither were those who died in the World Trade Centre or any Americans, because they support the U.S. Government!
Posted by: AnonymousI do not believe the actions were justified because it didn't change anything.
Before the bombs, the Japanese surrendered but refused to surrender unconditionally because they wanted to preserve their emperor and political system. The US, incensed and wanting revenge for Pearl Harbor, decided to drop the two bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. After the bombs were dropped, the Japanese STILL refused to surrender unconditionally, and eventually the US gave in.
So if there was no change in Japan's position before and after dropping the bombs, what was the point of dropping them and killing millions of people in a very gruesome way (or letting them die of cancer later) necessary?Posted by: AnonymousI'm Shocked.
This disaster was an abomination of human interaction and the United States should have been punished for war crimes against Japan. Sure, the Japanese soldiers were terrible, and sure, they weren't about to surrender, but why kill 200,000 innocent civilians in two different locations? And it's a sad world if an American Teenager knows the repercussions and horrors of this act of terrorism.
Posted by: ORWELL6NO
Even if they were warned, the people that were killed were innocent civilians. You people are extremely ignorant, only seeing the American point of view. I visited Japan over the summer to see both sides of the argument. First off, we didn't have to drop both bombs. Honestly, I think that the first bomb would have been fine, if that even. Second, why did we drop it where we did? Not on a military base, not on a jail, but in the middle of an innocent town with kids and wives that didn't do a thing. Their skin was burned off and melted away, but some literally just incinerated. Others died slowly, from sever burns. The few who did survive grew up sick and their children were disabled and mentally ill. Also, blowing up the city cause starvation across the entire country and the Japanese civilians who weren't even near the bomb location became weak and ill. My grand mother was unfortunate and lived in Japan during that time, she now has "bow bones" and is still paying off debt. Do you not think there was a more peaceful way to end the war? Over 150,000 people died in Hiroshima, and over 75,000 people died in Nagasaki. Many thousands more died slower and more painfully. What made them deserve this? Imagine if a giant bomb suddenly landed in the middle of YOUR town, and all of your kids and your wife died painfully, their skin melted and their blood burned. Some were just incinerated, never to be seen again. And then, after all of this, you were left in a horrible debt with no home and people nationally had to suffer. All of those saying yes, stop being such ignorant little pricks. You only see that "Oh, hey, a few Japs died. So what? It's not like we died." Go die just like they did. Seriously. It is not okay.
Posted by: AnonymousNO
A nonsensical argument I have heard of late is that the Atomic Bomb is justified because the Japanese brutalized the Chinese. "They raped and killed millions, so its payback, theres no sympathy." If the USA really did want to prevent war crimes then they would have stepped in earlier to stop the Holocaust and Hitlers expansionist actions. Nanking doesn't justify the bombing. This is for the small minority that claim such nonsense.
Posted by: AnonymousIrresponsible and ignorant
Honestly, The only place on earth that the nuclear attacks are seen as a success are the United States. The deaths of around 150-240 thousand people, mostly civilians, cannot be justified by a study the US government did that "determined" the death toll would be less if they used nuclear bombs. Today, if a prescription drug company did a test on one of their own products and deemed that it was great and would be better than any other, no one would give that test merit until outside agencies determined the same conclusion. The United States was selfish and used a weapon that they did understand. Also, the Japanese were waiting for a response from Russia on there status in the war before answering the Potsdam Declaration, but because the Prime Minister said that he did not plan on agreeing to the declaration, newspapers declared war was a reality still. Honestly, as soon as Russia would of declared war on Japan, Japan would of surrendered. They live on an island and it is surrounded by the two strongest countries in the world, along with Great Britain, the worlds former superpower. Literally, the decision to use the atomic bomb was a selfish, and ignorant decision of a country that just wanted their way and they wanted it now. And the after effects of this caused every country with military strength to try and possess nuclear warfare, almost caused a nuclear war between the U.S and Russia which would of ended the world, and caused many angry dictators to attain nuclear weapons. Even today, countries threaten lives with nuclear war. And now that nuclear weapons are more common, you can guarantee that if or when a nuclear attack happens, surrender will not result, deaths of millions of people will result in a world wide, nuclear war.
Posted by: AnonymousIt is wrong to killed so many innocent people in war
It was wrong decision taken by the American government because to kill lots of innocent people to take revenge was not right at all according to me . This war was between two defense army of two different countries not between the people of those two countries. I don't know why all this stuff has happened and I don't want to know this at all. I am so small for this, but my views for this is always against to the USA defense army. There is no reason to use that atomic bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, they can fight with another armed force, but using atomic bomb was not right. Until today in Nagasaki and in Hiroshima children are suffering from skin diseases due to radiation of atomic bomb. And the USA had just said 'sorry' to the Japanese, but they could not stop these problems by which Hiroshima and Nagasaki have suffered. At last, I want to say that to kill so many innocent people in war could not be right at all.
Posted by: 240166Unacceptable, unjustifiable, inexcusable
The United States of America’s (USA) President Harry Truman claimed the dropping of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 ended World War II, sparing countless American lives. However, the bombing was not justifiable given Truman’s other objectives for using the atomic bomb. The USA aimed to intimidate the Soviet Union and study the atomic bombs’ effects without the tremendous costs to the USA. In addition, the death and suffering borne by the Japanese civilians can be classified as a war crime hence totally unjustifiable.
Posted by: AnonymousHorrific act of terror and use of WMD
The impact of the use of the atomic bomb on Japan had catastrophic affects at the time and years after. The USA is quick to evoke sympathy whenever they are faced with acts of terror yet they fail to acknowledge the history of their country and the provocation they have given other countries. This was nothing more than an experiment with awful effects that devastated a country.
Posted by: AnonymousNot Justified at all
The bombing's were pointless because what we gave them after they had surrendered after the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What Japan wanted was a conditional surrender, which is what they had asked for before the bombing's, and we gave them exactly what they had asked for before we bombed them, therefore making the bomb's pointless. In their conditional surrender before the bombs, they had asked that they get to keep their Empire in charge, which is what we gave them after the bombing's.
Posted by: metsrockJapan had already lost the war, so why drop the atomic bomb
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:
The Japanese were ready to surrender and it was’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Humayoon.APosted by: AnonymousMore people had and could be killed by conventional bombs
No because they killed more people by conventional bombing. The United States had almost obliterated sixty eight Japanese cities. Hiroshima was the seventeenth smallest city on the list of city population.The Japanese were far more worried about the Russians fighting in an all out war and having to fight a war on two fronts with the Russians and the west.
Posted by: AnonymousImmoral fools who think it was justified
Immoral fools who think it was justified. Those who said yes are immoral fools who prefer to murder innocent civilians over the peaceful method of negotiations. What a shame for those whose it was justified? Ask anyone besides an American, as Americans are war hungry, if the bomb was justified and they would respond saying no. Folly fools.
Posted by: AnonymousAttack not proportional to the attack on Pearl Harbor
The reason the attacks were not justified was because the violence used in war must be proportional to the injury suffered. The reason it works with that principle is because the attack on Pearl Harbor was nowhere near the same amount of devastation compared to the Atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The United States could claim that they were trying to re-establish peace. But there is no evidence to show that they were doing it to re-establish peace. They were just looking for a way to end the war.
Posted by: AnonymousImperialist Americans Drop Bombs on Innocent Japanese
The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was simply a way to scare the Soviet Union, as it sent them the message that the United States were not afraid to use their new, powerful weapon that the Russians did not have. This was likely the cause of the Cold War. Also, since the Japanese was almost gone by 1945, the Americans would have maybe lost a few thousand soldiers in an invasion, whereas the Japanese lost 225,000 civilians in the atomic bombings. This makes Truman a mass-murderer, enough to get HIM executed at Nuremberg.
Posted by: SocialismNot only did we kill innocent people during WWII, we ruined the lives of generations of innocent Japanese
When we dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima we did not know the effects that radiation would have/ could have on people. Radiation from the bomb still effects the Japanese today in terms of birth defects, susceptibility to cancer, and other health issues. These Japanese Americans had absolutely nothing to do with the war. While the bomb may have been dropped in order to end the war there was also a lot of racism behind the decision as well. The world was still furious about the Rape of Mankeng and while the actions of the Japanese are in no way justified the world was furious and was looking for means of revenge. By stooping to this level of destruction the United States was not demonstrating peaceful reconciliation and leadership. The atomic bomb has definitely tarnished the reputation of Americans in the eyes of many around the world. The bomb no doubt has still left the Japanese government with bitter feelings which could possibly lead to nuclear warfare. Just think of World War I and how the Treaty of Versailles led to World War II because Germany was blamed for starting the war. Nuclear weapons should always be avoided.
Posted by: AnonymousNo they weren't.
The dropping of the bombs may have stopped the war, but it did not take away the grudge between the United States and Japan. Instead it made it worse. It made it worse because the United States then killed thousands of children, women, and elderly men and women. So was the United States justified? I think not.
Posted by: AnonymousSurrender was already inevitable.
The Japanese were already preparing to surrender and Truman knew it. He wanted to show the Russians what America was capable of because he knew the Cold War was coming, and Russia was the next greatest threat. There are plenty of documents supporting this. It actually seems like the popular opinion at the time was not to drop the bomb, or at least not on civilians as there was no strategic value at all.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's a war crime
U can't justify killing civilians no matter what. Dropping atom bomb on civilian population has to go down as the worst war atrocity ever. No one would do it now as it would be rightly considered a heinous war crime. It seems to be justified by many people because they are not white. Yes Japanese soldiers were horrible to the Chinese and they should have been tried for war crimes just like the Germans.
Posted by: AnonymousJapan would have surrendered anyway.
Japan clearly stated that they were going to surrender anyway so the use of the atomic bombs was not at all necessary. It was the date of August 15, 1945 after the Soviet victory in Manchuria that forced the Japanese to surrender though the war council didn't know the extent of the loses.
Posted by: AnonymousInnocent Killings are never justified
People shouldn't just be killed for what country that they came form. They are innocent people that didn't deserve to be bombed or killed in the brutal way that they did. In my opinion, there is no excuse for that kind of thing and I would regret being part of that.
Posted by: AnonymousInnocent died, they didn't have to
There is no excuse for killing innocent people, especially children. Sick act. No one would like an atomic bomb in the USA, same for anyone. The harm is just too devastating. Nothing can justify the horror, there must have been other ways, but something taking the easiest way out is not the answer.
Posted by: AnonymousU.S.A. why would you do that
The Japanese were not given enough time to surrender and they were going to they just wanted there emperor to stay there leader for as long as possible. U.S.A. Killed 200,000 - 340,00 and another 2000,000 died from radiation. U.S.A. Knew that they wouldn't win the war against Japan so they just bombed them in my opinion i think it was an act of cowards
Posted by: ravynThe US did not have to drop the atomic bomb.
The US had a choice to drop that atomic bomb. There was an alternate plan that they chose NOT to follow through with. Scientists stated that if the US dropped the bomb onto a shoreline of Japan, the Japanese would be able to see the power and destruction that the bomb would possess. Thus, possibly creationg an early surrender and saving hundreds of thousands of lives lost either the day of the bomb, or multiple years later from radiation.
Posted by: AnonymousThere is no acceptable reason for using atomic, nuclear, or chemical weapons on people.
The United States Government is being punished for committing such a horrendous disregard for human life by being lead into stupidity from evil spiritual forces. Government officials ( they are not leaders) are falling victim to believing they are not children of GOD and can do thier own thing. The government is going against GOD and endorsing immoral sexual desires, taking us into extreme debt, and stripping us of our freedoms as it tries to control all phases of life in order to make things better as they see it. In the process they are leading more people away from the LORD and condemming themselves to an eternity of pain and suffering.
Posted by: AnonymousNo it is not morally justified.
The US dropped the bombs at 2 locations that are already suffering and struggling to survive. If the bomb was not dropped, Japan would have eventually surrendered. There is no evidence that less people will die if they drop the bomb and the fact that most the people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians made it completely unjustified. And yes even though they did support the war by making the supplies and weapons but they only did so because they had to support their family. They had to do it because they need to do work to survive. This is like saying if someone murder someone and the person that supplied the gun who had his or her family taken as hostage, is as guilty as the murder and is also punished and killed. The bombing of Hiroshima and nagasaki was absolutely unnecessary and injustice.
Posted by: AnonymousOther options were available.
Japan was experiencing great losses by this point in the war and it wouldn't have taken much to push them into a decision to end the war. The first bomb could have been used to demonstrate the power of this new weapon by using it in a non occupied area (i.E. Tokyo harbor). If the Japanese still refused to surrender then the use of the second bomb may have been justified (though it still seems like a desperate act in which many innocents lost their lives. It was not the first time the United States bombed civilian targets in Japan. Some 60 cities were firebombed prior to the bombing of Hiroshima).
Many argue that a demonstration of the first bomb would have been a waste since only 2 bombs were prepared at this time but I argue that the lives that could have been saved justifies the at least the attempt. However, due to rash decisions and the need for America to flex its muscle we will never know if a demonstration would have sufficed.Posted by: AnonymousIt was an inhuman act.
How can someone order such a destructive weapon to fall on innocent civilians! These people were average Japanese citizens who had no idea that two bombs were being dropped on them. And what makes this act even more appalling is that the aftermath of this devilish act still remains. The generic systems have forever changed after this bomb and radiation is still a major factor in the areas.
Posted by: AnonymousAttacking the defenseless.
It was a direct attack towards non involved civilians, rather than dropping the bomb on areas of military importance or benefit. Although some might say they have an impact on the war, the answer to the question on who is more important to the war effort is an obvious one, the soldiers who fight the war are the ones who should be targeted, not the civilians back at home who have no say in what's happening on the battlefield.
Posted by: AnonymousThey weren't justified in doing this, but they definitely were needed.
You can never justify killing thousands, leaving the rest to die slow painful horrifying deaths. Unfortunately it was needed to end the war. The atomic bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have been dropped in surrounding areas to scare Japan into surrendering from the United States of America. :)
Posted by: AnonymousSoldiers killing soldiers is war, killing thousands of innocent civilians is murder.
I don't believe the USA had the right to do such a thing, they should not be able to hold the right to kill hundred of thousands of people. How many innocent civilians died at Pearl Harbor? I bet none. They were all war related one way or the other, going to war is one thing killing like that is another, I am an American and I'm horrified by how stupid all these people who are for America are.
Posted by: AnonymousSuch a horrible act of aggression can never be justified.
The fact that anyone tries to justify murdering hundreds of thousands of people is appalling, and I fear for the moral compass of these people. Japan was falling, so bombing them was an unnecessary act that is still affecting people in Japan today from the radiation. No matter what anyone says,that was murder and no one has the right to take away life.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, the Japanese were warned but they weren't given a date as to when the US would drop the bomb.
Not only that but what evidence did the US give to proved they had such a weapon? Sure they wrote that they promised they were gonna drop an atomic bomb, but anyone can easily just write it down as a bluff. Plus the Japanese were already planning to surrender in the first place. The only reason why it took so long was because they wanted the emperor to stay in power, as well as have the imperial family protected. The emperor was just a figurehead, he had no real power, so he didn't really pose a threat. The US could have just accepted the Japanese's term of surrender, which was keeping the emperor in power. That was their only condition, which didn't really pose a threat, yet the US was dead set on their unconditional surrender.
Posted by: AnonymousThe planned murders of hundreds of thousands of civilians cannot be justified.
It astounds me how people can excuse this. "But, but... But Pearl Harbor! USA! USA! USA!" they chant, as they produce miniature American flags from their pockets and began frantically waving them back and forth as fast as their flabby, McDonald's-laden arms will let them. "If we hadn't brutally devastated hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, we might have lost more troops invading Kyushu," they explain, as I stare open-mouthed. What seems to escape these people is that, all other factors aside, it is not okay for militaries to kill noncombatant civilians. Pearl Harbor was an attack by the Japanese military upon the American military in response to a series of blockades and provocations by proxy which we had perpetrated against them. Hiroshima & Nagasaki were deliberate acts of terror by the American military against Japanese civilians. There is a difference.
Posted by: FRNo. never.
Many people are misunderstanding the power of the atomic bomb. Still, to this very day, people are dying from radiation in forms of cancer and disease. Even the American government knows what they did was wrong and have tried to cover up the intensity of their actions by denying it, and undermining its severity. We fail to speak about this in classrooms and in the public in general. We are the only nation in the whole entire world who have resorted to such monstrosity. We make a big deal out of 9/11 and yes as tragic as it was, we feel a more passionate connection to this issue because it happened on our soil, hurting our people. But the atomic bomb was far worse. In fact, it is one of the most ugliest things that humans have done to one another. Shortly after the drop of the bomb, instantly hundreds of people were melted on the spot. But it is the survivors that suffered the most. Many of them have had bits and pieces of their skin melted off with no hospitals to attend to, no family, no money, absolutely nothing. Many have described it as a living hell. Maggots and insects have been known to lay eggs on their wounds. All of these details are just one hundredth of the gruesome reality of it all. To those who say "ye?" To the justification of Japan without much of a reasoning other than "because they attacked us firs?" Should read or see the movie "grave of the fireflie?" Or other forms of media on this horrendous act of humanity and educate themselves on just how much suffering was caused.
Posted by: AnonymousIt wasn't justified
They dropped the bomb on innocent women, children, and other citizens that were not directly involved in the war and Japanese were ready to surrender. Many people died and many became maimed for life because of the atomic bombs.
Posted by: AnonymousCrime against humanity
Purposely targeting civilians is never justified. The Japanese people were no more responsible for the actions of their government that we in the U.S. Are. The U.S. Killed women, children, the elderly. If Japan had done that, they would have been condemned in history forever.
Posted by: Anonymous