Was the United States justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945?

Asked by: SCarrumtsd
  • It was completely justified.

    The only reason such a radical solution was ever used was because the islands Japan had military control of were some of the most defended places on the planet due to Allied troops having to hop from 1 island to another losing thousands of lives and then the mainland of Japan made the other islands look like they had the defensive capabilities of a tuna can to storm every beach the death toll would have been horrendous. The only way for a fast lasting victory was to break the iron will of the Axis forces and even iron melts under the pressure of a nuclear bomb, also I think they deserved it after all the atrocities the Chinese people had to endure by their hands.

  • Yes. Very much so.

    Japanese culture way back in the day taught that you should never surrender, and fight till' the bitter end. So, an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have caused millions of American deaths as well as Japanese deaths, since every single person on that island would have gotten up to fight. Every man, woman, and child. Weighing the loss of life after the bomb drop compared to the projected loss of life from an invasion, the bomb was justified.

  • Always has been and always will be

    You know that one scene in movies, books, and tv shows where the main character has to make a tough choice where both sides will be end badly, but one is less horrible than the other? That's what the dropping of the bomb was like and people constantly put it out of context. When reading this, keep in mind for every single second that Japanese leaders WOULD NOT accept surrender and were willing to GIVE THEIR LIVES to keep standing.

    Simply put, the US had no other choice, it was either drop the bomb or literally tens of millions of deaths. Here is why the bomb was dropped:

    - Asking for Japan to surrender was completely out of the question because the Japanese military emphasised the importance of dying for the Emperor, no exceptions. In fact, we had to drop a second bomb on Nagasaki because Japan refused to surrender after the first. The leaders seriously did not care about their citizens and had them converted to a controlled mental state more dangerous than the Nazi's

    - Japan, before the war started turning on them, was training ALL of its citizens to fight. Training not only included guns, but also swords, wooden staves, various types of cutlery, and any other object that can be used to kill which would make an invasion enormously difficult

    - An invasion of Japan would kill millions. Not just Allied soldiers, but many many many more Japanese citizens who were brainwashed into thinking that the Allied soldiers were rapists, murderers, savages, and full of hate. This mentality was seen in the Battle of Okinawa, which is often used to exemplify what a mainland invasion of Japan would look like, but obviously on a much larger scale.

    - Not would the overall outcome of the war be different if Japan hadn't surrendered, but also the post-war world. Very shortly before the Americans dropped the first bomb, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan but only managed to make it to Korea, one of Japan's holdings near the USSR border. If the USSR had invaded mainland Japan, the country would've been divided into Communist-backed parts and Democratic-backed parts. Similar to North Korea and South Korea.

    - This also means that the Korean war would have been lost because the US used Japan as a major foothold when fighting in the Korean War. Mostly for ports, airfields, and transfer of personnel. South Korea would be completely taken over by North Korea, strengthening the moral of Communism in Asia as well as possibly sparking a similar event in a divided Japan. Which, if succeeded, would have all of Eastern-Pacific Asia under Communist control.

    And for those of you that favour Communism, you mistake it for socialism. Citizens of Communist countries were/are not free because they lack a majority of basic human rights. There is no other party to vote for, secret police, executions, rewriting of history, inequality, and economic hardship (China may be an exception for the last part)

  • I don't think we had a choice.

    The reason we dropped it is because we didn't want to invade japan or take the risk that Nazi scientist were developing atom splitting for nuclear weapons. Although I believe that a "world superpower" shouldn't be afraid to invade a almost destroyed military and very damaged country, I know it was the right choice not to wait around for crazy Hitler to take things out of hand. Nuclear weapons as a whole I am completely against but because of the enemy and the fact that they were planning to do the same thing to us makes it a less horrific decision.

  • Unfortunate, but justified.

    When the United States engages in war, we must fight to win. That goal must be accomplished for the good of the US, and the good of the world as a whole. Civilian casualties are a horrible reality of war, but we shouldn't alter our decision making in war based on the fear of civilian casualties.

    Let's look at the numbers for a second: Approximately 160,000 died immediately from the bombs, with about 100,000 dying over time afterwards. So a total of 260,000 deaths. If the US had to fight tooth and nail to take the Japanese island conventionally, estimates say that as much as 800,000+ US soldiers would have died, with possible millions wounded. Japanese military deaths would have reached above 1.5 million deaths, and civilian deaths could also near that level. So if the US had refrained from using the atomic bombs, a total of well over 3.3 MILLION people would have died.

    All numbers aside, the US needed to win that war. We ought not refrain from the most effective way of winning just because it has the nuclear word in front of it.

  • Do unto others

    Would Japan have been justified in dropping nukes over San Antonio and Philadelphia during WW2? Would Russia be justified in dropping nuclear bombs over Dallas and Norfolk? Would Great Britain have been justified in dropping nukes on Philadelphia to stop the American terrorists in 1776? If the bombs were dropped in ignorance, fine. But, from what I've read, the US knew the destructive power. The US is the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons. I think all nukes should be rounded up by the UN and destroyed. While Japan is a great liberal democracy, this would've eventually happened as the US would still have won. Germany became a liberal democracy after WW2 as well, and no nukes were dropped on them. Germany & Japan were both liberal democracies (a la semi-presidential and UK parliamentary, respectively) before militaristic parties took over democratically (and then destroyed democracy).

  • NOTHING can justify such a barbaric action.

    Thousands of innocent people died and thousands of people were injured. War should be between soldiers and NOT with innocent people who have no choice.
    It no only killed the people of 1940s but it influenced the children of the next generation.
    Human should care about humanity and nothing can justify barbaric actions

  • Slaughtering innocent civilians is never justified.

    Dropping two absolutely devastating nuclear bombs on cities filled with innocent civilians should never be justified. Yet it might have been justified (just might of) if the bombs were dropped on, I don't know, somewhere where the enemies were located. And if you don't agree that mass slaughter isn't justified you might require serious mental evaluation

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