Amazon.com Widgets

Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

  • Yes. Legally and Morally it was the best option.

    Invasion would've been devastating for all, while the bombing quickly and efficiently ending the war, saving countless lives in the process (due to the imminent Operation Downfall/invasion expected to cost hundreds of thousands of more lives) and also providing the allies with an unconditional surrender of the Japanese, ending the war.

  • It was :)

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably justified more than likely, maybe. If not for all the civilian life lost, then because it helped us win the war, it might just as well have been a justified act. We could have lost a larger amount of our troops and spent much more time fighting if not for the bombs.

  • The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the quicker option that would have saved more lives!

    Before the 2nd nuclear bomb hit Nagasaki, Russia the Soviet union at that time, declared war on japan. By scaring japan to submission, the US and there allies didn't need to invade Japan witch would have cost about 1 million more people to die. Also we would have got another Korea. What i mean about that, is that the Soviet union could have invaded the north part of japan. We could have seen another country split up by the Us and the Soviet Union. Also Estimated deaths in japan would be around 5 to 10 million, by the allies they never added more if the Soviet Union came in. As well the allies would estimated deaths would be around 1.7 to 4 million. If we didn't drop the nuclear bomb we would have seen a huge change to are present day life's. What I mean is, we wont be seeing the birth of Nintendo Video Games, as well as other technology the Japaneses have made. Also by not dropping the bombs we would have seen a different cold war, a war that went HOT!!!!!!!

  • It was mean of JApen

    Japean was planing on putting more atom bombs than the UsA had and they would have to be there anyway so the japenise were going to be kiled anyway by themselves in kamikazy fighting after dropping 10 bombs on the united states! It was good for them to kill theose milltary citys becasue it saved americans who were all innosent

  • It was mean of JApan

    Japen was planning on putting more nuclear bombs than the USA had and they would have to be there anyway so the japenise were going to be killed anyway by themselves in kamikazee fighting after dropping 10 bombs on the united states! It was good for them to kill those military citys because it saved americans

  • Saving Civilians Lives

    It was justified because the bombings may have taken Japanese lives however it saved a lot more by preventing the war from reaching a more critical stage. Japan had threatened to fight till the last man and America weren't willing to take that risk PS: i am British so lol

  • This saved more than it killed

    I personally believe that this was completely justified. This was able to finally end WWII completely and finally saved what could have been millions.
    The Japanese themselves were known for being relentless, and what always accept death over defeat. This war would not end until every able bodied man woman and child was dead on the ground. This simply was the way of life.
    Second, this could even be karma in a way. Ask the families of those who saw their brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers slaughtered, raped, tortured and worked to death by the Japanese. Ask them if they believe if this was justified. Ask them if they forgive Japan for what they did to children.
    Finally, this prevented from nukes being used again. We have had a perfect 70 years of non-atomic annihilation. The fear of Nuclear weaponry is a doubled edged sword in a way, which creates the fear of this weapon, which will keep this weapon from being fired again

  • Bombings were necessary

    My father is a WWII veteran, who was at Okinawa preparing with others to invade Japan. He knew that, if they invaded, he probably would not be coming home. The military had ordered thousands of flags which would be draped over those who died in the invasion. If you ask him whether or not the bombs were necessary he will tell you they were very necessary and there wasn't a man in Buckner Bay waiting to invade that wished it had not been done. What happened to Japan was nothing compared to what they did to millions of innocent civilians in China and the Philippines. It is amazing to me that they would think whatever they did was fair, but what was done to them was unfair. If yo pick a fight you need to be willing to get your nose bloodied.

  • Do you agree

    The war would of went on longer because in jappinsies culture they were taught not to surrender which would of made the war last longer and kill more people than the atomic bomb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • Yes it was neccasary (I think)

    First, imagine if Japan got there hands on a bomb how many us lives need to be taken what if they did not take a peace treaty? Enough with the what if’s I know people need facts the war may have lasted years and 100% take millions of lives. 1

  • 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 http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html 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.