Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Is it morally right to use atomic bombs?

  • You're all dumb

    We needed to end the air before the axis powers gained enough ground to win the war. Using the bombs knocked out one side of the war, allowing us to move troops to the other front. If we hadn't done this, we might not have won the war, or it could've cost us resources we couldn't afford to lose after the Depression.

  • The bombs saved 432 million innocent Asian men, Women, Children, Babies

    Japs were massacring 100, 000 innocent Asians per week in August ew Guinea, Singapore, China, Korea, Philippines. They already butchered half our families.
    Why should we prolong the war further and let them continue to butcher millions?
    Millions of us should die in order to spare 150, 000 Jap.
    If that bomb has the slightest chance to end the war, Drop them.

    Tbh, I think we should’ve incinerated 1, 000, 000 jap civilians just to teach them a lesson. They go about butchering tens of millions of innocent Asians. Just killing their soldiers doesn’t teach them a lesson. Incinerating 1, 000, 000 of their civilians did. To this day, Japs lament Hiroshima for the horror of war. It teaches them never to wage war again. They needed that lesson. Just killing their soldiers would not be enough to properly educate them.

  • This arguably one of the most continuous debates that can never be quite proven

    However, if you look at the time period Japan still believed in the saimiri culture of honor. They would rather kill themselves than emit defeat. So if you really look at this US would have needed a big effect on Japan for them to even consider surrendering at that point. Plus you have to consider, yes the atomic bomb injured and killed many people but if you compare the death rate of marching men into battle and having an invasion of Japan. Invading countries and Japan would have had more casualties on both sides then with the bomb. So no this wasn't just a quick solution but also to help prevent more deaths for everyone. In addition, if you consider how many innocent people Japan has conquered and effected there wasn't much of a difference in the end to how innocent people were affected. For example, the Chinese that was taken over at the time and were treated horribly with no mercy. Yes, Japan was wronged in a sense, but not in such a drastic measure as we think and remember this is war nothing will be completely fair for either side as each side fought for what they thought was best at the time.

  • They bombed us too

    They were upset with us because we cut their trade off because they raped so many women and children and the US found it wrong. They got mad at Us for rightfully cutting off their trade so they bombed us. We wanted to end the war so yes we used the bombs. If you know your facts you'd stop pitying the situation

  • Thousands vs Millions, years of continued fighting vs an almost immediate end too the war

    War is never morally right. Human beings are killing other human beings which is wrong. The feeling people feel when they take a life is, well, awful because they just killed someone. The bomb was not moral, but neither was attacking Pearl Harbor. The alternative to dropping the bomb was an invasion from the allies. This invasion would have been much, much, more inhumane because the Japanese would have to have been exterminated too the last man, woman, and child. Everyone from the elderly, to children as young as 5 or 6 was being given weapons and training to defend the homeland. It would have been a genocide on such a scale, the holocaust would have looked like a normal occurrence in the war. Also, we have not got into the casualties the allies would have suffered especially if the USSR would have gotten involved. The USSR had a tactic of throwing bodies at a fortification until that single fortification fell. They of course had the numbers to do this. America would have lost anywhere from 1-3 million troops in the invasion, and the other allies would have lost a similar amount. The decision to invade would have also prolonged the war by at least 2 years if ALL and i mean ALL of the allied powers put most of their resources into taking/exterminating Japan. Then after this their still would have been years of fighting from pockets of resistance who will not give up. So was dropping the bomb morally right? No, of course not. But, the alternative would have prolonged the war and cost many many many more lives. War is never morally right. But that is what it is, war. The goal of war is too kill the other guy as quick as possible to end it. And killing civilians is apart of that.

  • For the greater good

    The only other option would of been to invade. This would of killed thousands and thousands of both american and japanese lives. How can you possibly try to not prevent that? Also the bomb was not to kill innocent civilians it was aimed at a military strong hold, to break the Japanese heart.

  • The Alternative to the Atomic Bomb Was Less Humane and Morally Right

    The alternative to the atomic bombs was an invasion of Japan, which was already being planned for 1946, and those plans included casualty estimates even more staggering than the deaths that have left a sea of crosses in American cemeteries at Normandy and elsewhere. “Revisionist” historians have come up with casualty estimates a small fraction of what the American and British military leaders responsible for planning the invasion of Japan had come up with.No mass killing, especially of civilians, can leave any humane person happy. But compared to what? Compared to killing many times more Japanese and seeing many times more American die?

  • It is morally right to use atomic bombs.

    It is morally right to use atomic bombs. We had to do something to be able to get their attention and this was the only way to do it at the time. They ended up with the result that ended the war and effectively led them to the country that they are today.

  • No, Obviously not

    Yes, The united states needed to fight back after Japan bombed the Pearl Harbor, But atomic bombs were not the answer. Even if one thinks that the first atomic bomb was okay, The second one was almost certainly unnecessary and just proves that the united states didn't mind killing hundreds and thousands of people just to prove the world (and especially the soviet union) the power that it had.

  • It was unnecessary, And therefore not justified whatsoever.

    Japan was willing to surrender if the United States allowed them to keep their emperor, And abide by the Shinto religion. The Allies said no because we wanted an unconditional surrender. What Japan really feared was an invasion, Once Russia declared war on them and sought plans to invade their northern most home island, They quickly capitulated. They knew about nuclear weapons, They had a nuclear program for crying out loud. Truman dropped the bombs because he wanted to show Stalin we had them, And were willing to use them. It was a political gambit, And a joust of brinkmanship, To start a terrible trend in following years. From then on, One only has to look at our behavior as a nation to further supplant this. There’s an account from the North Vietnamese government after the war was over stating that “The US threatened nuclear intervention on 13 separate occasions. . ”(Which now any threat made with nuclear weapons is illegal, By international law. ) “Gas” was a tool, “Anthrax”, Was a tool, “Agent Orange”, Was a tool, “saturation bombing” was a tool, “napalm” was a tool. They’vie all been used, Indiscriminately, To murder civilians, Destroy ecosystems, Cause genetic mutations, In following generations, Just like the radiation from Atomic weapons. Oppenheimer and Einstein both deeply regretted their creation. They had just created the most efficient and effective tool for self-ending the human race in the history of our existence. Unfortunately, We took it out of the box, And it’s not something you can put back in the box. I never hope they have to be used, They shouldn’t have been used in the first place.

  • I can't say if it was necessary or not, but it was in no way morally right.

    Such a weapons is immoral to use on civilians, but at times it may be necessary to use. I don't know enough about the circumstances to say whether or not it was truly necessary, but that does not erase the innocent lives lost. At times bad things must be done for the greater good, but that doesn't make them morally right. This is why it is not morally right to use atomic bombs.

  • Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    It is not right to kill innocent people what did they ever do to you why would you ever kill people it is no tight to use bombs I don't know why people do it but for whatever reason it is not right the day old judgement will come

  • It goes against rules and morals

    It is morally wrong to kill such masses in an unnecessary manner. But it also goes against the rules of the banning of the use of weapons of mass destruction which was put in place after the First World War, after they had seen the devastation that had bombs caused.

  • Many Killed in the incident

    A lot of people where killed instantly, with Napalm which is nearly as hot as the sun, people where vaporised and didn't have the chance to escape, with a lot more other options to scare Japan, all you need was a full on attack on land and you would have had them

  • Humans don't have the right to play God

    First of all, the bombs weren't even necessary to end the war, so it was immoral to use such unnecessary cruelty. Secondly, people in Japan are still suffering from radiation poisoning from these bombs years later. In the day that the bombs were dropped, for every 1 soldier that died, six citizens died in Japan. America did not and does not have the right to kill innocent people, at that point it is not defense of America, but killing because we are able to kill.

  • Oranges and Grapes

    So lets say you have a sheet of paper pulled taut. You throw grapes at it.They bounce off harmlessly and do no harm. Little but virtually no harm maybe a few holes but when throwing a large orange at the taut paper a large hole is torn through the center and lots of harm was done to the paper. That is how the bombing should be viewed as something that was well large and ominous,awaiting to happen. The bombing was immoral I mean what did that paper hurt you but the hands pulling the paper taut have harmed you in some way. You aim at the paper and the orange juice get the edges watery and they start to dissolve. So think about that like the bombing destroying many innocents but also having after affects. It is inhumane and cruel.

  • No,it is not.

    Do you know how much damage these was after the atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? I have been to the Atomic Bomb Dome. I saw a lot of displays. For example, I saw a lunch box burned with heat, pictures of people with burned bodies, and a watch that was stopped at 8:15 there. The displays really shocked me. I’ll not be able to forget those. It’s very harrible even now, so I think it was harrible beyond one’s imagenation . I’m certain, It’s not morality right to use atomic bombs.

  • I don't think it's morally right to use atomic bombs.

    It might be necessary for the end of the war, but it isn’t morally right. I have two reasons for this.
    First, the atomic bombs injured many people. Yhey lost many friends and theur family. Even now some of them are suffering aftereffect of the atomic bombs.
    Second, the atomic bomb shoudn’t exist in this world because it’s the inhuman weapon. It destroys many things and many people all at once. Didn’t American people have any better idea for the end of the war? I think if they discussed much more, they could have better idea. Then many Japanese people didn’t have to feel sorrow.
    We will never make mistakes like that.

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