It cost the equivalent of 25 billion dollars to make this bomb and the American government wanted to see if it would work. It would have caused 2 million allied deaths and 3 million Japanese deaths for full scale invasion along with countless civilian catalysis, so it was a good idea.
Japan already killed over 2,000 people in the Pearl Harbor bombings. We had done nothing to provoke them, unless you count our cutting off trade with Japan, limiting their oil supply. That was also reasonable, as they were rapidly conquering the Indian Ocean and wanted to take the Pacific too.
In addition, this was nearing the end of WWII. Hitler and Germany were already out of the picture, but Japan was still strong, holding several hundred islands in the Indian Ocean. We moved to take out Japan by defeating the Japanese on several islands, but because of their kamikazes, we took heavy casualties, and the Japanese lost far less men than we did. A full-scale invasion of Japan would have cost thousands upon thousands of American lives, and that was simply unacceptable! Dropping the atomic bombs saved American lives and crippled the Japanese from attacking us, thus effectively ending WWII in the Pacific Ocean.
The Japanese in Korea brutally killed and tortured many Koreans. They made young Koreans into prostitutes and frequently raped women. In China, they killed and chopped off the heads of many Chinese men with no apparent reason. The Japanese massacred and raped many in the Rape of Nanjing. In short, the Japanese need to be taught a lesson on how to be humane to other races.
The U.S. was definitely justified in dropping the atomic bomb, because Japan killed a lot of people in the attack on Pearl Harbor. I think that was totally uncalled for for them to bomb us. They learned their lesson in fighting us and they learned for future reference not to attack us or fight with us again.
It was either drop the bombs, kill a few thousand people or not drop the bomb, the war lingers on and more people die than the bombs killed. WW2 had to stop and this made it happen. Neither country could afford any more warring on the other, this was a costly expense. True we killed innocent people, but if we didn't more would have died at the hands of the Japanese and of the Americans. The bombs not only made sense, they saved lives. Despite taking some.
Source : Richardrhodes.Com "RICHARD RHODES is the author or editor of twenty-four books including The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which won a Pulitzer Prize in Nonfiction, a National Book Award and a National Book Critics Circle Award"
In this book Mr. Rhodes documents interviews taken after the war. One of the interviews was with Japan's leading physicist who also headed up Japan's atomic bomb research program ( yes, Japan was working on the atomic bomb as were several other countries in the 1930's). He was called to Hiroshima to advise Japan on what to do. Seeing that the USA had used a uranium based bomb, this physicist advised his government to CONTINUE THE WAR, as it would take months to prep another uranium bomb. After Nagasaki, however, he found evidence of a plutonium based bomb and advised his government to SURRENDER or face total destruction. So you see, even the first bomb was not enough to end the war. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor when we had done nothing to provoke them, there were also innocent children in Pearl Harbor and it is an eye for an eye. Besides, it is not like the people who died from the explosion weren't warned a luxury we were not given. The US was completely justified.
They would've fought until the last person in Japan died because that's their mentality. This would have made the war last longer, resulting in many more casualties for the allies. It ultimately saved more people. It is not war mentality to think of preserving the lives of innocent people when the safety of the world is at stake.
I have one simple argument if the bomb was not dropped a land invasion was planned for the 1st of November 1945, which would have cost the U.S. 1 million troops, and the Japanese 3 to 4 million troops civilians ect... all Japanesse were ordered to fight to the death.
The U.S. had dropped leaflets on two cities a few days prior to the A-bombings of Hiroshima warning civilians of air raids within a few days and advised them to leave the city immediately. They did not leave so you chose to put yourself and your families at risk of bombs being dropped on your head. If you don't believe me, then Google "America warned Hiroshima".
And Pickle, Japanese planes also shot American civilians at Pearl Harbor and killed directly over 68 so it's not just soldiers and marines. Not to mention the attack on Pearl Harbor was done without a declaration of war and without a warning so it's not acceptable by any means to kill non-war people (soldiers and civilians) out of nowhere, thus placing Japan in violation of peace.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had tens of thousands Japanese soldiers, plus both cities had military / industrial installations and were protected by anti-aircraft defense batteries in case if hundreds of B-29s would come in to firebomb their city. It's also the Japanese fault that they placed military /industrial installations in middle of the civilian-populated areas and "innocent" people you called them were working in factories and workships producing weapons of war and last time according to the 1907 Hague Convention, civilians working in factories and workshops engaging in production of war supplies were legitimate targets.
There is no justification for killing innocent men women and children if we can justify killing thousands of japanese civilians is going to save americans then we should not b surprised if terrorist justify their cause and survival by killing the innocent. We have to fight injustice but not at the expense of innocent lives
Although it is true that an invasion may have killed more civilians, there surely had to be another way to end the war. It is clearly not right to kill this many people, and in the long term it is still bad, as there is still radiation in these places. There could have been another way. Apart from the test explosion, no one knew what the bomb could do.
The US was in no way justified. Not only did the bomb kill innocent civilians, but it was not necessary. Admiral Leahy (President Truman's advisor) said himself that 'Japan was already defeated' and that there was 'no reason to use the bomb'. But most appalling of all, Hiroshima was only chosen as a target because they wanted to see the full effect of the bomb. We already know that Nagasaki was the second target, but why? According to the booklet by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Nagasaki was simply an 'experiment', but an experiment that cost Japan innocent lives. The US denied any knowledge about radiation, even though it was radiation which killed 200,000 in Hiroshima. This decision was totally unnacceptable and inhumane.
On 6 August 1945, the first atomic bomb to be dropped on foreign soil was released from Enola Gay on Hiroshima, Japan. This nuclear bomb, named Little Boy was dropped as a devastating attack in an attempt to make Japan surrender, and destroyed Hiroshima as over 70,000 people were instantly killed.
When Hirohito, emperor of Japan refused to accept the United States' terms of surrender, the second atomic bomb, 'Fat Man' was dropped over Nagasaki on August 9th, 1945. Many people detested the use of the atomic bombs as the mass murder of civilians was believed to be an inhumane act. The aim of this investigation is to find out whether America's decision to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan was justified. This investigation will concisely cover the events that brought the US into the Second World War and its connections with Japan during the war before the nuclear attack. This investigation will also examine the US's decision to allow the bombs to be dropped over the cities. Content from a variety of documents, stories from those who witnessed the event, and writings from Truman's speeches and diary will help reveal if his decision to drop the atomic bombs was justified or not.
Im gunna keep it short and sweet. They were way out of line and should have found another way to end the war. But I want to and will say this, I happen to be an american. So want to inform you all that not all Americans agree with it. So please stop insulting america and its citizens because a vast majority of them do not like and are not proud of the past. So just don't go thinking that all american people are the same please.
Yes the Japanese had no right to attack us in the first place and we did have to come back harder. However 68 civilians died in pearl harbor while 140,000 civilians died because of the Atomic Bomb. No civilians should ever be touched in war but we should not have dropped them with out knowing its full strength and not caring about all the innocent people.
The bomb was not justified. I don't care if Japan started it or dropped the bomb first, be the bigger man or in this case country and just stop. Don't react. The only thing that dropping the bombs did was kill more and more innocent people. While the US sat there all fine and happy you had people in Japan starving and dying because America thought "Lets show them who the boss is and teach them a lesson." America needs to step off its high horse and do what's best for its people not the leaders. They had the choice to not do it but they still did and that is why America is hated till this day, not just by other countries but by those in this one.
"But U.S. officials chose not to test whether this intelligence was correct. Instead, Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9. Because of logistics, an invasion of Japan could not begin for another three months, so the U.S. could have waited to see if Japan would surrender before dropping the atomic bombs" (upfront 1).
The atomic bomb was necessary to end the war with Japan at the earliest possible moment. By the early summer of 1945, Japanese leaders knew they could not win. But they fought on in hopes of securing better surrender terms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/11/05/peaceful-protest-is-much-more-effective-than-violence-in-toppling-dictators/, shows you how such is evaluated. However, one may say that the Japanese would not have listened to nonviolence, unfortunately, such is not the case. People in Japan where already getting ready to surrender, nonviolent advocators in their country were trying to be peaceful, and as shown by what happened, the emperor was quite frankly leaning that way too. The reason this happened was because the military had control of not only Japan, but of America. If that money had not been spent on the bomb, and rather on nonviolent protests, it would have been an easier task for both moral and financial reasons. How much money does nonviolent protest cost? Less then 25 billion dollars I assure you.
Y dos tis wepsit sukz pecuz it wnt let me wite les tan fidy wordza a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a aa a aa a a a a a a a aa aa aSUPA SANIC FEST a a a a a a a