Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by:

Yes it was justified.

  Some people here (and especially on the "no" side) are outrageously stupid and full of anti-American bias and needs to seriously brush up some real history and not some PC-crap they learned in public schools. A lot of people forget that WWII isn't some Napoleonic Wars of the 1800s where it's just soldiers meet each other in the battlefield to settle the issue. With the introduction of an airplane thanks to the Wright Brothers in 1903, it took warfare to the whole new level. In WWII, civilians in the cities were part of the war effort since all sides mobilized it's resources to defeat the enemy. Every bomb dropped, every bullet fired, every warships carry soldiers in the sea, every warplanes fly over other countries to strike targets, every tanks used to withstand bullets/shells, every uniform clothing made for soldiers, every artillery used to pound enemy troops, all were made by civilians. Obviously it's where the army used to get these things from and kill enemy soldiers overseas. Therefore, they were a fair game. Bombing the cities full of military importance(also housed by civilians) would deny the enemy military the resources they needed to wage war against us. And as bad as it goes, it practically worked and Japan didn't have resources left by 1945 to wage war. This term is called "Total Warfare". To give an analogy: If a person makes a bazooka gun, then gives it to a friend, knowing full well it was going to be used for a crime, then that person is so guilty. The civilians worked in the factories and small-time industrial workshops KNOW the weapons they were making was going to be used for war, therefore represents a fair game. It was either their life or ours. Every country values their life over the others so it's obvious both sides don't give a shit but only their own. Hiroshima & Nagasaki were military targets. The HQ of the 2nd General Army under General Shunruku Hata was in Hiroshima which commanded the defense of all southern Japan and they were 40,000 soldiers stationed in the city. In Nagasaki, it also had thousands of industries supporting the war effort especially the Mitsubishi factories making "Zero" planes used to ran the U.S. naval fleet off the Pacific Coast. The idea was to cripple their war effort, not to kill as many Japanese, as historically illiterates used to say. And the U.S. dropped leaflets on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on August 1st, 1945. Search "LeMay bombing Leaflet". It warned Japanese civilians that in a few days, the cities they lived in will be targeted for bombing and were advised to leave right away to save themselves from destruction. One of the leaflet statements also said, "bombs have no eyes", meaning they can't control where the bombs fell. Be it nuclear bombs, firebombs, high-conventional bombs, etc, it doesn't matter because what the warnings said on August 1st 1945 was serious. Since most people in Hiroshima & Nagasaki did not leave, the deaths were their responsibility. I don't see Japan doing that at Pearl Harbor nor American soldiers asked to be bombed that day. I also don't see the Japanese military doing that after conducting military operations in Asia that kill 20 million non-Japanese people as well. And the Japanese didn't bother to surrender AFTER THE FIRST BOMBINGS. Many fanatic Japanese officers were convinced that the Americans only had ONE BOMB even they know it was. So they decided to go on with the war. However, the 2nd bomb was dropped on on Nagasaki and many Japanese officers still resisted to surrender. However, Hirohito feared that if they go on with the invasion, then the entire nation would be exterminated because the U.S. may have more A-bombs in the assembly lines. So they did, And in response to the posting Anonymous that the invasion would only cost 100,000. Wow, you're a moron. The invasion of Japan would not just costs the U.S. 100,000 lives it also costs millions of Japanese lives too. There are rock solid basis for those estimates: Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan. Those were outlaying islands of Japan. JAPANESE CIVILIANS committed suicide rather than surrender. In Okinawa alone, civilians including woman and kids were mobilized by the Japanese Army to fight the Americans and as a result, 100,000 civilians died. Do you really think it would have been easier on the mainland? No it was not. To say otherwise is really ridiculous. The A-bombs saved more lives than it took. If the A-bombs was't used, then the U.S. would had go back to firebomb every major Japanese cities which would have caused the same amount of deaths ad destruction. Tokyo was ripped by firebomb and more than 100,000 civilians died in a single night which was worser than the A-bombs combined. Yes the radiation was a different story but in terms of deaths and destruction, i don't see the A-bombs different from the firebombings that was practiced by all nations during WWII. Honestly, people needs to brush up their history like the "no" side is supposed to doing.
Anonymous says2013-04-09T17:04:11.360
You may say that everyone was military personel or helping the military, but it was brain washed in many of them to listen to whatever the emporer said, many of the japanese did not support the war but they had no other option for they would be shunned and or jailed for their actions. Just because they did help did not mean they wanted to, and taking their lives no matter what we used is immoral. If Truman could have been as great and strong of a leader as FDR a peace treaty would have been signed sheerly by how outnumbered japan was. Also the dropping of the bombs was mostly the reason of the cold war and the nuclear arms race. Other solutions were strongly possible especially since Japan was working on a treaty already when the second bomb was dropped
Anonymous says2013-04-11T03:22:30.370
-You want a history brush-up...Ok: We bombed Hiroshima after warning the Japanese leaders that it would happen and they refused to surrender. About 100,000 Japanese were killed within the first SECOND. And not just soliders but innocents too. Aside from that, we opened the door to neuclaer warfare and weapons of mass destruction, something we are now trembling over. I see the flip side, but in the end, it opened a door that didn't need to be opened at that time, aside from killing thousands of innocents.
Anonymous says2013-04-13T17:10:49.477
This guy needs to chill. Stop arguing over a past war and focus on the present ones. Hindsight bias and ad hominem are no way to settle a debate- ever.
Anonymous says2013-04-23T11:06:04.463
The bombs are in no way justified. There are no ways to justify the taking of human lives like that. There were other solutions available...But instead they went with the bombs. To be honest atomic bombs never should have been made.
Anonymous says2013-06-04T07:26:02.157
You can't just brush off the entire radiation being spread to not only hiroshima and nagasaki, but the rest of japan, korea, parts of china, and future generations as a "different story".
Anonymous says2013-08-11T03:48:14.237
To give an analogy: If a person makes a bazooka gun, then gives it to a friend, knowing full well it was going to be used for a crime, and also knowing that if he doesn't make that bazooka he'll be executed for treason against the state, that person cannot be held culpable for making the bazooka.
CaViCcHi says2014-03-10T23:40:13.013
This analogy gives me shingles...

So much ignorance here as well... Unamerican if you don't think that killing tens of thousands of civilians is right.

Warped vision or just stupid?

I understand why the big guns dropped the bomb and the profit, but stupid civilians no, I don't understand how they can justify it.

By the same logic if IRAQ would drop a nuke on L.A. They would be justified... Killing millions of stupid but innocent civilians.
XxHakamxX says2015-04-29T03:13:58.797
Thanks bro, that really helped me with my argumentative essay. I agree 100%.
SomeGuyWhoIsCool says2016-08-24T23:59:20.607
^The person who wrote this thing? Oh, you are a moron and a fool for believing all the American twisted facts. Japan tried to surrender with the protection of the Dynasty, but of course, the Americans denied, and bombed them anyways. If the American government had any humanity, they would of accepted the conditions, but it was pride that took them over.
AlvisYang says2017-04-25T01:49:31.867
I would like to say your information about the Lemay Bombing Leaflet is wrong. The Lemay leaflets displayed fire bombing not a a bomb. In addition, the leaflets were extremely uncoordinated, the leaflets for Nagasaki arrived after the bomb. Technically they were not warned.
seas04 says2017-05-31T01:50:51.167
Lol to long
douloi_esmen_anprim says2018-02-01T21:11:33.303
Really!? Because the Japanese did not leave their homes, it was their own fault that they were bombed and died, rather than the fault of the Americans who dropped the bombs?
Joeloel says2018-05-01T04:57:24.433
Great stuff. Thanks for the info
osia1974 says2018-05-08T13:27:02.973
I could not agree with you more on many of your points. The 100,000 anticipated losses is a fraction of what I have seen in most projections. I Strongly disagree with the sentiment you express that the Japanese of Hiroshima deserved it. The Atomic bomb was a secret. There is no way they could have known such a destructive weapon would be unleashed. Silly argument. I bet you are one of those people that says ignorant things like "kill them all and let God sort them out."
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)