Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by:

The bomb was VERY justified.

  1 million men were estimated to have been killed in a full scale invasion of Japan. Those men would be someone's son. Someone's bothers. Someone's husband or boyfriend. The atomic bomb would definitely end the war. Try to explain the fact you had something that would end the war to the 1,000,000 mens' loved ones but their son, brother, or husband had to die. 100,000 civilian casualties didn't come anywhere near the amount of casualties there would have been in a full scale invasion of the country, and that's without including the number of Japanese that would have been killed and civilians. It also doesn't come any where near the amount of civilians murdered in the Holocaust.
donald.keller says2013-03-16T05:57:52.727
1,000,000 on the landing... Up to 4-5 million afterwards.
Anonymous says2013-04-01T02:47:41.040
Get your facts straight, there is no possibly way that you could know a million people would have died. Yes, 100,000 civilians died and even MORE people have had to live with the radiation poisoning in years to come. Multiple generations were left to live with the aftermath of the bombings. And theres no reason to compare the bombing to the holocaust. Both were unjustified acts of evil on innocent lives.
Anonymous says2013-04-17T17:33:22.233
Do you also not understand that they were soldiers who were killed in America, but those in japan who were killed were main citizens who had nothing to do with the war except that they lived in hiroshima. And the bomb is not justified because someone found out about the fact that a great possibly reason for the surrender of Japan was because the soviets declared war on Japan.
Ryland says2014-05-16T15:07:37.980
Why invade Japan, if they were gonna lose within the next 1-2 months anyway, that would also "save" soldiers lives, and would not ruin millions of civilian lives for decades.
ekrst says2014-07-29T22:04:38.450
I'm sorry, but I don't see "we aren't as bad as they were" as a legitimate argument. Is it something like, okay, my enemy killed 200 innocent people so as long as I don't kill more than 199 I'm good?

Also, Japan surrendered because of Russia. Not us. I'm guessing we didn't know Russia's plans at the time, though can't be certain. But either way - killing civilians is not right. Of course the German government slaughtered innocents unnecessarily - does that mean we should too? The Japanese carried out a brutal invasion of Hong Kong - does that mean we are justified in killing people who had nothing to do with that decision? I don't support my government's policies in most of the world, and probably neither did many of the people who died on September 11. - So why should they be killed for it? That's why we call it terrorism. And I think any act of aggression against civilians which blatantly ignores the rules of war should be criticized just as strongly. In fact, it was terrorism. The idea was to cause terror. To make the entire country afraid enough to surrender by making everyone - not just soldiers, but everyone - a target.
NuffSaid says2015-03-03T05:05:24.457
@Ryland. You don't spray around the fire and say it's out............ Hitler didn't stop to put a slug in his head until Russia was close enough to basically slap his face.
seas04 says2017-05-31T01:53:46.837
I don't understand this argument XD
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)