Amazon.com Widgets

Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

  • Yes, it was necessary to stop the war.

    The atomic bomb on Hiroshima was brutal, yes. On the other hand, it was the only way to stop the war. Japan was going to invade the U.S. and we were running out of supplies, people, guns, bullets, etc. It was either the bomb or lose the war. World War II was the fight for humanity, if Hitler won (not to be taken offensively) the world would have gone to hell.

  • Duhhhhh!!!!!......The only other word for it is necessary.

    Okay. To start it off, we, the U.S, gave Japan an uncountable amount of chances to surrender. Before they could even reject and continue to fight for their homeland, we warned them that if they don't surrender we would destroy it, their homeland. As anticipated, they again rejected and continued to fight. So although a little bit too harsh, we dropped an A-Bomb.

  • 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.

  • War is war.

    The Japanese tortured American POWs and did atrocious things. People need to remember ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR. Don't kid yourselves, they would have done the same if they had the chance. They were going with Germany in a world conquest. They killed Americans! Our brothers and sisters!

  • 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.

  • This is America

    We do what we have to protect our country and our soldiers fighting for it. Everyone who believes it was cruel and mean needs to consider the family and friends that where being mutilated and abused. America is a place of freedom and anyone who was born or was a citizen should always be able to obtain that.

  • Yes, for lives in the United States of America

    We are America, and we defend American lives. It was necessary to save the lives of thousands of Americans. The USA is the greatest country in the history of the world and we need to do whatever it takes to defend this great land and the great people that call it home.

  • The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was Not Only Justified, it was Legal and Unassailable Under the War Crimes Laws of the Era

    The Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 state that "the attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited". Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were undefended. Therefore, they were legitimate, legal targets. Also, the Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Bombardment, drafted in 1923, state that "air bombardment is legitimate only when is directed against a military objective." Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets due to their significant military presence and industrial production capabilities. The United States did NOT violate any international rules of engagement at the time and therefore the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki do NOT constitute a war crime, end of story. It's not up for debate; it was not a war crime when it happened. Deal with it.

  • It saved thousands of allies lives.

    The only alternative to the bombs was to invade the Japanese home land with the odds of the slaughter of many more civilians as they literally fought to the last. It was more than justified to bring the war to an abrupt end.

  • They were warned but ignored the warning!

    The United States sent a warning to Japan and the two cities that they were going to bomb them but Japan refused to leave. By leaving many people could of lived, but since they chose to stay they chose death on themselves. It was also a revenge for poor treatment and for the bombing of pearl harbor.

  • No at all.

    Over 270.000 innocent people were killed by U.S. Atomic bombs. The problem was the Japanese government and not innocent people. The bomb, which was dropped on Hiroshima, was called "little bob" and the one that destroyed Nagasaki was called "fat man." It seems, the use of atomic bomb was like a play for the U.S. Until now, there is no change in the foreign policy of the U.S. To commit crimes in very part of the world: Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Bolivia. Chile, Argentinian, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

  • 100% no!

    War is difficult. People die. This is why war is meant to be avoided at all costs. To bomb two cities, whether they are building bombs or not, is completely illegal. Look at American reaction to 9/11. 3000 lives tragically lost due to vicious terrorist attacks leads to war on terror and an invasion into how many countries? Truman bombed Japan twice and directly attacked civilians. Pearl harbor was a military target. Japan could have attacked boat yards, marine training camps, any background military target yet attacked a naval base. Civilians are victims of war, not targets! Truman should have been held accountable for his actions. Just as American still should be. Nobody expects the U.S.A. To police the globe. The bombed Japan out of cowardice of the war they forced Japan into. Einstein rued his work on the bombs and wished he had become a clock maker like his father than achieve the amazing things he achieved in his life time. If this is one of mankind's greatest minds' feelings on the matter why are some people so close minded and afraid to see the horror of what happened. Imagine it happened to you.

  • No, the bombings could have been avoided.

    Why not conventional bombing to avoid the consequences that the people of Japan had to deal with long after the bomb had been dropped. Not saying that killing people with the use of conventional bombing is okay but it would spare the lives of those whom were born with deformed bodies and features due to the radiation passed through those whom were exposed to the blast and its devastating wave of destruction.

  • No, the use nuclear weapons to justify a political problem is unnecessary and unforgivable

    Do you recall the "battle of London?" Repeated waves of Nazi bombers in the sky, inescapable doom? Repeating, day in, day out. Now imagine this, the Nazis conducted a nuclear explosion in new York laying waste to every man, woman, child and chances are it's your city next. Place yourself in a Japanese' shoes, your house, your family. The fault was on Japanese congress. Split for surrender 3-3. Emperor can break ties. Good politics, including both state political persuasion and swift tactical strikes on political targets were the needed by the us other than nuclear weapons targeting civilians.

  • Of course not! thousands of people died needlessly that day. the Japanese had no defense of this destruction weapon.

    The Japanese may have bombed pearl harbor. The us hit them with something huge! Hundreds of thousands of people died. Over 90,000 of them were women and children. Have you any idea what that bomb did to them? Patterns on there clothes were burned into their skin. An autobiography of a child said that nothing was left of their garden. In the place of the pumpkins there was a woman's head. Her eyes had been burned out and her hair burned off. I don't think America has gone soft! I think they just don't think about the people they just murdered in cold blood! If the soviet union could have taken Japan it would have killed numbers of people. But, you have to think on how many lives it would have spared. How would you feel if you had lost your family? How would you feel if you got severe radiation. How would you feel if you had your eyes burned out? I know I would feel miserable and not understand the one question in my mind. Why?

  • It is completely unacceptable

    Yeah, sure, Japan attacked pearl harbor. However, pearl harbor was a naval base, with 68 civilian casualties listed under friendly fire. When the us dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, over 200,000 civilians were killed. Men, women, children, babies. Dead. Whole neighborhoods completely flattened. Many non-Japanese people were killed too. Pow's, students their on scholarships, migrant workers, immigrants, etc. If the goal of the bombings was to end the war, why not bomb Germany? It is illegal to kill civilians! The allies were at war with the Nazis, not the Japanese!

  • Well I think bombing Hiroshima was a good way to end the war

    But it was totally not justified to bomb Nagasaki days later when Japan were in a stance to surrender. Japan is still suffering from radiation and people are still dying from it. So my point is that Nagasaki was not a justified plan, but Hiroshima was.

  • The bombs were not necessary

    Weapons of destruction already existed (incendiary bombs killed more people than the 2 bombs did together, the projected casualty rate of American soldiers had they invaded Japan should not have been half as high as the casualty rate of 2 bombs combined. By dropping the bombs, the Americans effectively condemned the affected people to either death or a life of suffering. The Americans were effectively saying that the lives of civilians were literally not half as valuable as American soldiers. The Americans also invaded the Philippines though it was not a direct threat, and was unimportant for winning the war. The main reason for invading the Philippines was probably for honor.

  • The Japanese bombed military basis in Hawaii, we bombed cities devoid of soldiers, that's not justice, its terror.

    What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was state terrorism. Those who call it justice for Pearl harbor ignore the differences between the parties that died and the numbers of those who died. In the U.S. the Japanese bombed a military base killing mostly soldiers. Part of that attack was to destroy weapons, and likely more so to destroy those weapons than to kill people. The total number of deaths that day, 2,403. When the order was given to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki where only women, children, and the elderly of both sexes resided at the time, it was clear this had nothing to do with military strategy. It didn't take out weapons, it simply killed and poisoned noncombatants. 300,000 Japanese people died in those two bombings. Justice would have been attacking Japanese military training facilities, or weapons caches, not deliberately targeting innocent civilians.

    Posted by: XglossyWynd
  • I feel that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unjustified as such loss of life can never be warranted.

    Although the United States had to retaliate against the Japanese for the bombing of pearl harbor the can never justify murdering so many people. The loss of life was so great that no act can warrant such a devastating retaliation. The vast majority of the people that perished were completely innocent and had their life taken away over a simple act of revenge.

    Posted by: J Navarro 62

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