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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, President Truman was in every way justified to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2, at least from his viewpoint. From his viewpoint as a president, he was required to put the safety of, and the lives of his own citizens first and foremost over others, and not one can argue that the dropping of the bombs quickly ended the Second World War, and that it was much faster and efficient for the Americans(of the U.S.A.) than any other method. Also, had Truman not ended the war quickly, more lives from all over the world would have been lost, due to the fact that without the bombs, there would have been many more classic head-to-head confrontations, in which more lives total would have been lost.
After much debate and careful thought, the conclusion was made to drop it. There are many reasons for why President Truman decided to make the choice, ranging from protection of the states to just wanting the war to end. But was his fatal decision justified based on the given evidence? This controversial topic is still being discussed even today. The Japanese were showing no sign of giving up, despite the relentless bombardments by the U.S. troops. Truman knew that, due to traditional Japanese honor, there would most likely be no end until one side surrendered, and it wouldn't’t be America. America could not afford to continue fighting such an expensive war, which could have also contributed to the decision to use the bomb. Because of the circumstances Truman was in at the time, he made what he thought was the correct decision. Truman’s choice was correct because there may not have been another way out, and it would cost too much to take that kind of a risk. Due to the economic crisis America was in, the unceasing Japanese fighting, and the protection of U.S. citizens, America was forced into a decision that could have saved millions.
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.
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.
Of course it was justified. We got attacked, their country was supporting unjustified war, and simply experienced the consequences of perpetuating an unjust war. They sought to take over the world and propped up a genocidal, horribly despicable country named Germany.
That the war was dragging on and more lives would have probably been lost if not for the bombing, is relevant but somewhat beside the point. They were attacking us, seeking to perpetuate global evil, and we ultimately had a right to defend ourselves and fight back. We did what was necessary to stop a horrible evil and it's sad that that proved necessary, but it was.
What I think was NOT just was the internment of Japanese Americans in prison camps, that was NOT justified. However, the bombing was.
America was not justified in dropping the bomb. First off they had no idea how strong this bomb was or how much damage it would cause, they just decided to drop the bomb on a city filled with innocent children and people. I mean yes there had to be an end to the war but I feel like there was a better way of doing that. They could have figured out something other than blowing up Japan. There is no way that some one can honestly think that it is okay to kill thousands of innocent women, children,... People. They were all people. And the U.S. ended their lives just because they could. Innocent people didn't need to die to end the war. It just wasn't right and it wasn't necessary.
No one in their right mind would support the killing of innocent civilians on 9/11 on the basis of the argument that Osama Bin Laden and his cohort wanted to end the war between radical Islam and the U.S. So why is it acceptable for the U.S. to have incinerated tens of thousands of civilian men, women, children and babies to end the War, when there was a military alternative? The U.S. could have continued the war against the Japanese armed forces instead of targeting Japanese civilians. If the Japanese civilians who were killed are not deemed to have been innocent (although it is hard to see children and babies as anything but innocent) because they may have supported the Imperialist Japanese Government, then neither were those who died in the World Trade Centre or any Americans, because they support the U.S. Government!
Taking out thousands of civilians has to be considered a war crime. The only nation that shouldn't be allowed weapons is the US, as it is too uneducated to use them. Truman was nothing other than a brutal murderer, as were the men who dropped the bomb and the ones who supported it.
Prior to reading some of these arguments, I was honestly willing to believe that Americans were at least somewhat remorseful for the horrible crime that was the dropping of the Atomic bomb. Wow, have you people ever proven me wrong. It appears that not only do Americans believe that this disgusting act was justified, but that it was the right thing to do. You disgust me. Children, I repeat, innocent children, were butchered. Many of these children died slow, horrible deaths. I can only imagine the outrage that would come from the citizens of the United States if New York had been bombed, and instead you were the ones who had to watch the skin melt off of your children's faces. I even read one comment stating that dropping the atomic bomb was a good thing, because it allowed people to see the effects. To whomever said that, screw you, you are a despicable human being. The United States is an evil Juggernaut that uses their powerful military to rob poor, desolate countries of what little wealth and oil they have. Your nation is evil, accept it, and maybe use your voices to try and change it. Your ignorance will not stop the mass murders committed to this day in the name of American "freedom."
The bombs were dropped as a direct retaliation action of the U.S.A. To the attack of pearl harbor, which is a military facility. It was USA's military naval gateway to the pacific and south east Asia. But why must the bombs dropped in the middle of civilian cities, i.e. Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the majority casualties were civilians. Not to mention the long term effect the nuclear weapon has on the public health for decades. U.s.a. Was and still is the only nation that have deployed full scale nuclear attack on another nation. And now they are ironically championing the anti-nuclear campaign. To me, the bomb on Japan was far worst than the alleged holocaust during the ww2. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are the real holocaust!
I don't believe the USA had the right to do such a thing, they should not be able to hold the right to kill hundred of thousands of people. How many innocent civilians died at Pearl Harbor? I bet none. They were all war related one way or the other, going to war is one thing killing like that is another, I am an American and I'm horrified by how stupid all these people who are for America are.
Not only was the warning to Japan only 5 days before the bombs were dropped, there were still innocent people in Japan. USA killed over 140,000 innocent people in Japan along with 2,000,000 people killed by radiation, not even considering the people who now are deformed and linked to cancer. That's way more than the bombs at the twin towers that killed around 3,000 people. No matter if Japan was supporting Germany, there were still INNOCENT PEOPLE that were killed. And I still know that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, which had no innocent people (because they were all troops). Those people are DEAD for no reason.
The us was scared if they didnt used the bomb they wold have lose, they were showing a act of cowardness and plus in the Bible it says thou shall not kill and what did the Us did kill over thousands of innocent people that was even in the war. well i hope the people that drop the bomb got saved because if they didnt there in hell now. but i doubt they repented.
It seems to be a matter of personal philosophy. If you believe that the ends justify the means, then dropping the bomb may seem justified. However, then you seem to indicate that you do not regard an attack on civilians, regardless of the extent they are involved in the war effort, to be any different than an attack on military. A military is a fighting force who at least expects that they are putting their life on the line to serve their country, for whatever purpose that may entail. They have willingly made a commitment understanding that death is a possibility. That is their sacrifice, and we should all greatly appreciate them for that. Civilians are completely different. Their involvement in war rarely extends so far. How can you possibly consider them to be necessary to a war effort, unless you have no particular regards to whom you kill to get done what you need to get done? If that is so, then yes, you believe the ends justify the means. Just know then that you have no right to complain about any action similar to such, like 9/11. We meant to send a message to the Japanese with a bomb on their civilians. The terrorists meant to send a message to us when attacking the WTC. The message may be different, but both chose to attack civilians to get our message across. If you choose to see it differently, then it is because you are making it personal. Perhaps then you should consider how others may make what we did personal, similar to how you view what 9/11 did to us. I have not served in a military, so perhaps my viewpoint is skewed when I say this, but if I personally had to make the choice, I think I would rather continue to fight a long and hard struggle, rather than slaughter innocents. I guess it depends on whether you value the victory or integrity of the nation more.
Not only that but what evidence did the US give to proved they had such a weapon? Sure they wrote that they promised they were gonna drop an atomic bomb, but anyone can easily just write it down as a bluff. Plus the Japanese were already planning to surrender in the first place. The only reason why it took so long was because they wanted the emperor to stay in power, as well as have the imperial family protected. The emperor was just a figurehead, he had no real power, so he didn't really pose a threat. The US could have just accepted the Japanese's term of surrender, which was keeping the emperor in power. That was their only condition, which didn't really pose a threat, yet the US was dead set on their unconditional surrender.