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.

  • Killing innocent people to save lives can never be justified.

    The notion 'kill lives to save lives' can never be justified especially when those lives are of innocent men, Women and children. Yes Germany and its allies commited horrendous war crime but the Allies were no better in being also responsible for war crimes and countless loss of life. But I guess history is written by the victors right?

  • Killing innocent people can never be justified.

    The notion 'kill lives to save lives' can never be justified especially when those lives are of innocent men, Women and children. Germany and its allies were bad in the horrific war crimes they committed but so we're the Allies but 'hey' I guess history is written by the victors.

  • It was unnecessary

    Bombing Hiroshima could've been used as an example, But the U. S. Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It wasn't necessary to bomb 2 cities. The bombs could've also been dropped in a less populated area as a warning and not a slaughter of innocent civilians. Overall the bomb was unnecessary and we could've won the war without it.

  • Hell no it was not

    So America said civilians would die so they had to stop it BUT they killed 150 000 Japanese civilians and they could have used spies or less destructive force and the Japanese were already going on the brink of surrendering so here for why would they try to prove a useless point.

  • Not Justifiable Because:

    I don't think it was justifiable because the war would have ended anyway because of everything else. We were already bombing their factories, Harbors, And ports so that they couldn't produce any more ships and not that they would even need one or two ships they would need several dozen ships because their whole fleet had been destroyed in earlier battles. The Allies had also blockaded the mainland so that any help couldn't get to them.

  • They can't prove anything

    Short and simple: You can't prove Japan was about to surrender, But you also can't prove definitively that it would save lives. We warned them we'd destroy their land, But they didn't believe us, So why didn't we just bomb a less populated area to show them we weren't lying? Again, We can't prove that this would have convinced them, But there is a possibility this could've ended the war faster and with less causalities.

  • It didn't help Japan at all

    Many arguments say we could've dropped it somewhere less populated to show them what it could do. We could've also tested it more to make sure Hiroshima and Nagasaki could still survive afterward, Both from radiation poisoning and because of the bomb's explosion itself. After all, We were in this to win the war, Not to ruin Japan as a country. Also, While there is no definitive proof as to whether Japan would've surrendered, There's also no proof that the bomb saved any lives.

  • The bombings were war crimes

    I seem to have missed the memo where it was decided military expediency justifies killing several hundred thousand civilians.

    While some like to defend the bombings by claiming it was the lesser of two evils-- either drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or risk american deaths by conventional invasion-- this very plainly is not the case. It ignores the option of negotiating surrender with the Japanese entirely, Which the Japanese would have been in favour of had the Potsdam Declaration not demanded that their surrender be unconditional.

    Even if the Japanese refused to surrender, They could have increased the pressure by dropping the atomic bombs on military targets or (as they had planned) an impressive demonstration in the highly visible and empty Tokyo Bay. A conscious choice was made to drop Fat Man and Little Boy on civilian populations, And it is a great injustice that that choice was never punished.

    Dropping the bombs was just the second-worst out of many options.

  • Inhumaneand dumb fsdf

    There shouldn't be any war in the first place fadsf
    g

    g
    df
    g
    fg
    f
    g
    f
    gf
    g
    fgf
    g
    f

    g
    f

    g
    f
    g
    f
    g

    f
    g

    f
    g
    f
    g

    f
    g
    f

    g
    fg
    f
    g
    fg
    fg
    f
    gf
    g
    fg
    fg
    f

  • Not good for me

    The Japanese military might was crumbling fast. Finances were all but gone. They were already ready to surrender. . . And it was only a matter of days, If not hours before it became official. So, It merely seems that America just wanted to flex their muscle and show the world what they're made of. . . Scare tactics for all to quiver at. Just wanting to test their weapons of mass destruction. . . Does not justify killing 100's of 1, 000's of innocent people - women and children! And not just once. . . But, TWiCE! Obviously they don't know when enough is enough. . .


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