Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

  • Yes it was, It saved a majority of lives at a small cost.

    Some may argue that the attack on Pearl Harbor was not a good reason to kill 125k civilians in the nuclear strikes, I say it was. First off, The US of A gave the Japanese a chance to surrender, And the Japanese said they would, But only if the Emperor stayed in power. The US refused to compromise as leaving the Emperor in power would most likely lead to more death and war in Asia. And as a final point here, Think about how they treated the American POWs. It was simply barbaric and they broke the Geneva Convention an uncountable amount of times.

    Now, If the US had invaded Japanese mainland there would have been many, Many, More deaths than 125k. Remember suicide cliff? A couple thousand civilians jumped off that cliff along with there families to avoid capture, And at one point in time the Japanese civilians were given grenades to killed themselves with if they were about to be captured.

    "Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1. 7 and 4 million with 400, 000 to 800, 000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. " -https://www. Historylearningsite. Co. Uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/

    Let's step back a bit, The US warned the Japanese Public and government that they would have to unleash a secret weapon on them if they did not surrender, The Japanese Emperor refused their offer. After the devastation of the first nuclear strike, The US asked the Japanese to surrender, And once again, Even though they saw the effects of the first strike, They refused. Had the Japanese not surrendered after the second strike, The US had plans to drop 9 more atomic bombs on their cities.

    Let's bring the USSR in the debate now. The Soviet Union had it's eyes fixed on Europe. The US, Having strong relations with many European countries, Would have been a much bigger problem now knowing that they had successfully tested and used atomic weaponry. This made a aggressive attack into Europe impossible for the Soviet Union. Some may also argue that the use of atomic weapons made the Cold War happen, But the Soviets were only years behind the US in nuclear technologies.

    Let's imagine if nuclear weapons weren't being created as a super-weapon to be used by warring countries in the Second World War. Imagine what would've happened if the USA and USSR didn't have nuclear weapons to discourage each-other from attacking, Promising Mutually Assured Destruction. This was (which would mostly likely be the Third World War) would be even more devastating than the last, As never had two superpowers faced off against each other in a full out war.

    Conclusion: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in fact justified, Had it not happened, Millions more civilians and soldiers would have died and the war would have dragged on for much longer. Also WWIII might've happened.

  • Dropping the bombs saved more lives

    If the U. S. Didn't drop the bombs they would've had to invade japan in order for japan to surrender. If they did invade japan they would've probably killed a lot of civilians because the civilians of japan were taught to never surrender and were taught to use weapons. There would've been a lot of American soldiers who would've died in the process of invading. The civilians of japan believed that the emperor was the second coming of god, So they would have followed him till the end. And look whos side they fought on

  • It was Necessary.

    Who knows when Japan would surrender? Japan needed to know what we were capable of. Japan killed many, People just focus on the bomb because we killed more. Japan would surrender if they didn't see/know what we could do with our new technology. People make us look like bad guys, Think of all the concentration camps innocent people were sent to, Not to mention the bombing of pearl harbor. Yes the bombing was tragic, But we wouldn't be here today without it.

  • This is America

    This is America
    Don't catch you slippin' up
    Don't catch you slippin' up
    Look what I'm whippin' up
    This is America (woo)
    Don't catch you slippin' up
    Don't catch you slippin' up
    Look what I'm whippin' up
    This is America (skrrt, Skrrt, Woo)
    Don't catch you slippin' up (ayy)
    Look at how I'm livin' now
    Police be trippin' now (woo)
    Yeah, This is America (woo, Ayy)
    Guns in my area (word, My area)
    I got the strap (ayy, Ayy)
    I gotta carry 'em
    Yeah, Yeah, I'ma go into this (ugh)
    Yeah, Yeah, This is guerilla (woo)
    Yeah, Yeah, I'ma go get the bag
    Yeah, Yeah, Or I'ma get the pad
    Yeah, Yeah, I'm so cold like yeah (yeah)
    I'm so dope like yeah (woo)
    We gon' blow like yeah (straight up, Uh)

  • Brutal and horid

    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.

  • If 2 million people die to save 10 million, What's wrong with that?

    While some say that it killed innocent lives, The atomic bomb stopped the war. If the war continued, Many, Many more people would've died. Plus, It saved millions and millions of dollars in the economy, As well as more buildings than you could ever imagine. Hiroshima was justified, As it stopped the war, Stopped the deaths of innocents, With the insignificant cost of 2 million people. Not to be insulting of course. It was brutal, And I understand everyone's concern and anger, But it stopped the war, And saved many more than it cost.

  • Saved thousands of American lives.

    Without the a bomb we would still have a enemy. If we used a slower technique they would have the opportunity to strike back. Even if we only hit one of the cities they would still fight back. The Japanese were ferociously loyal to their emperor. Even if they were weaponless they would run at us with pitchforks if they were told to. Point made through the suicide bombers.

  • It was good

    Japanese people are now producing anime and hentai, A very good way to get into their culture and help us understand them more. Also this bombing has halted nuclear war for a very long time, Luckily preventing how the first bomb would have been a much more developed second generation hydrogen bomb or just a stronger bomb in general.

  • They bomb us we bomb them

    They attacked pearl harbor because we cut off trade with japan of oil. They weren't doing things that were ethical so we cut off their main oil supply. Instead of talking briefly with America they attacked the biggest US naval base. So we had to teach them a lesson. America also warned Japan several times but did not listen. So then we bombed one of their bases and large city. And it took all that for japan to finally surrender

  • Bc you have to look at the bigger picture

    MIllions more could have died if we hadn't but i don't completely agree
    It was the best option at the time
    plus the USA didnt know the full power of the bomb
    It was justified though so i agree but not whole heartily
    people still died
    It was justified ywed

  • Innocent lives were lost.

    OK, so I don't know much about the subject, but I think Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and killed thousands of soldiers, while the U.S Atomic bombs killed MILLIONS of innocent civilians who had not done anything wrong. These were children and normal people who had jobs. I think the US was not justified enough to take action.

  • They could have dropped the bomb in a less populated area to warn the Japanese what the Americans were capable of.

    Why not drop a bomb in a jungle or somewhere and show the Japanese how much damage one single atomic bomb can do, and maybe another to show that they have more than one? Then maybe the Japanese might have surrendered, without tens of thousands of civilians having their flesh scorched off.

  • No, it was not justified.

    First of all, they were on the losing side anyways, they would have surrendered before it. Second, we didn't have to drop it on Japan itself, we could've dropped it near the harbor and scared them into surrendering once they saw the true power of the bomb. Third, if we had just modified the Potsdam Proclamation(A proclamation that demanded that the Japanese surrendered unconditionally without any say) so that they could've agreed to something. Fourth, many Japanese were killed, yes, if we hadn't dropped it than both sides would have had casualties, but the area they bombed had six civilians for every soldier. More civilians were killed than soldiers in both of those bombings. Fifth, people around the area today still have radiation poisoning and cancer and many other illnesses because of the bomb. I really don't see why we had to drop it there if anywhere. The bomb should not have been dropped.

  • We responded unnecessarily, brutally, and harshly.

    During WWII, President Truman had enlisted the help of the Soviets. However after doing this it is said that he regretted the decision as it would give the not completely trusted Soviets the opportunity to move further east. Because of this Truman needed a way to end the war quickly, and the US had already been testing atomic bombs, the timing could not have been more perfect. Soon after the testing had finished in New Mexico, President Truman was informed that the US had atomic bombing capabilities, the perfect solution to his problems. The US would be able to end the war quickly, and show the Soviets the potential of destructive force and power the US had. Soon the first bomb was dropped, but Japan did not surrender as they did not wish to fall to the terms of unconditional surrender. Under these terms their emperor system would be removed, and they could not stand for this. Therefore surrender was heavily debated on, eventually they decided to ask the Soviets for help, but it was too late for them, as the Soviets had been near the border of Japanese territory, and closing quickly upon the inland of Japan. It was now when Joseph Stalin declared war upon the Japanese. Eventually the US had another bomb to drop. They arrived to Japan within 5 hours, and the alarm had been set off in Nagasaki. But it turns out that the first plane sent was merely a weather recording plane, and the alarm was lifted. Soon after more planes came, this time carrying the bomb. They could not however drop the bomb without the third plane which had not yet arrived. Eventually they decided that they had wasted enough fuel, and decided to drop the bomb upon Nagasaki in order to make it back to the US safely because it would be the only way, they had to drop the excess cargo, the atomic bomb Fat Man. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Children killed, children who survived found themselves without parents or family. Thousands died later due to radiation. The US had responded rashly and without thought only trying to show the world that we still held power. And it was never recorded once that Truman or his officials ever questioned the use of the bomb either. It was decided without any further thought or questioning. And when the Japanese did surrender, the US cheered, but did we actually know what had happened? Children touching the bodies of their parents only to see the bodies poof into a cloud of ashes and particles only to be swept away. People everywhere died from radiation. We responded to the attacks not once but twice, causing the Japanese to decide to use kamikaze pilots. We had made them desperate with the second bombing. Many lives could have been saved if we had stopped after the first atomic bomb, Little Boy, which wasn't justified either. We could have negotiated instead...

  • The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justified.

    Definitely not justifiable because many lives were lost and many, to this day, are affected by the radiation from back then. Because the United States wanted a "quick end" to the war does not mean that they can go and bomb highly populated cities to "prove their strength." There are many other ways to do that.

  • Japan was about to surrender

    Japan was about to surrender, see here as a matter of fact they had just recently installed a new government and the main election bid was to end the war with the allies. Japan wasn't full of mindless soldier - folk as the media has stereotyped it to have been - on the contrary, there were peace activists and it should be noted

    |that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials."

    There is a real reason that the US dropped the atomic bomb - to prove to the Soviets that they had it and were willing to use it. And it work - a week after the bombs were dropped the Soviets declared war on Japan and showed solidarity with the allies.

  • H*LL No, not Nagasaki!!!

    You know what, personally I see no problem with dropping atomic bombs on a target that was military in nature, but to drop them on civilians is just barbaric and low. It constitutes terrorism and violates the Hague Convention (regarding the rules of war) that the U.S. had signed. In this sense, the U.S. were no different to Nazi Germany and Japan when it came to war crimes on enemy civilians. At least with conventional bombing, bombers aim for specific military-related targets (like a barracks, munitions factory, depot etc), but the atomic bomb destroys everything even those not related to the war effort (think about hospitals, universities, high schools, primary schools, kindergardens, religious buildings, cultural landmarks, residential suburbs etc). Going behind enemy lines to bomb their civilians is low when there was a high concentration of Japanese military in Kyushu because they were anticipating a U.S. invasion.

    The point is, are dropping atomic bombs on civilian cities ever justified for whatever political goal? Shouldn't the bombs have been dropped on a predominantly military target (like on the frontline)?

    If a Nazi had dropped an atomic bomb on New York City, and he pleaded that he was merely trying to "end the war and save lives", would YOU still agree to him being hanged? If so, shouldn't Truman thus be hanged for using atomic bombs on civilian cities?

    With no navy, no air force, their armies losing in China, their people at home starving to death, American bombers ruling their skies, an effective American sea blockade in place, Russia having just declared war on them, and with martial law imposed, Japan was essentially defeated by August 1945. America had 100% air superiority over Japanese skies and 100% sea superiority in Japanese waters. Japan didn't even have the ability to shoot down the lone bomber that carried the atomic bomb. No atomic bombs or a costly U.S. invasion was militarily necessary to end WWII.

    If I was the U.S. President I would've waited until Russia declared war on Japan on August 9, 1945 (as part of the promise they made to America). I would've waited to see if Japan would surrender in the wake of this Russian intervention (Note: this is actually what happened, Russia's entry into the Pacific War was what forced Japan to surrender). I would've waited until Japan believed all hope in China was lost (which was inevitable with the Chinese winning the war and Russia's eventual invasion of Manchuria). I would've waited until the sea blockade forced the majority of the starving Japanese people and the nervous Japanese cabinet to end the war (this is what Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz suggested to Truman, since he knew that with martial law imposed Japan was on the verge of rebellion). I would've given a public message to Japan saying that Emperor Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal and the imperial family would be saved (this is what Gen. Douglas MacArthur wanted Truman to do, since he believed Japan only fought on to save the imperial family from post war prosecution).

    These alternatives were there for Truman to use. It wouldn't of hurt to have tried them, but Truman did not use any of them. All these possibilities would've saved American lives, saved Japanese lives, given America a good image, and more importantly, ended World War II in a civilized manner. If Truman was serious about saving lives he would've tried those alternatives before resorting to the atomic bomb. It's funny how the atomic bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9 when Truman knew that Russia would declare war on Japan on August 9. In an interview to "The New York Times" in 1946, Albert Einstein believed that Truman deliberately used atomic bombs to try and end WWII before Russia could get involved. And indeed, by looking at those dates the only logical explanation for Truman to drop the atomic bombs on civilian cities so close to Russia's intervention was to intimidate Russia.

  • No one has the right to play god ...

    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 ...

  • No, it wasn't justified

    Around 2,400 American Naval personnel were killed in Pearl Harbor, and around 1,200 were injured. How is it justified, the bombing and killing of over 300,000 people, mainly CIVILIANS, due to petty revenge. Big deal, they killed 2,000 odd people; those people were military personnel. The people the Americans killed were mainly innocent civilians. Worse than the Nazis, at least they targeted potentially threatening points.

    It's not a case of "Anti-American bias" it's the simple fact that Americans can't take it when others prove to them that America is not invulnerable, that they can be attacked; and then they get in a strop and kill millions of people.
    The Americans are practically at fault for the Al-Qaeda as they supplied them with the weapons the Al-Qaeda are using against them.

  • An act of war is between soldiers only

    The act of war is between soldiers. Any country or nation that takes the stance of killing civilians is cowardly because it faces defeat and desperation in the battle between soldiers. For us to debate on this topic of dropping a bomb that kills almost 200k people mostly civilians, it is ludicrous to do so. There should be no debate on this, and especially the topic of what could be done. Don't assume anyone can predict the future. By that logic, why don't we kill the millions of people in Africa dying of malnutrition by bombing them out of existence? It may alleviate their suffering, and there will be more food for all of us, but the thought of anyone debating on the subject of the Hiroshima bombing abhors me. The bombing was an act of desperation and cowardice on part by Trueman and his government. As such, it should be remembered this way.

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