Was the US just in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Asked by: Rshan1023
  • They were justified.

    It was a moral dilemma that the United States government handled appropriately. The alternative was an invasion of the Japanese mainland that would have been significantly more costly for all parties. It also demonstrated the indiscriminative [and destructive] power of nuclear weapons to the world, thus ensuing in a mutual reluctance to employ such weapons again. We’re fortunate that nuclear weapons were used while they were small and underdeveloped.

  • It pains me to say yes

    It pains me to say yes, because looking at how quickly those bombs took the life of nearly a quarter million people is beyond disturbing. Nonetheless though, I find the US to be just because for one we had no idea what to expect, and for two, after the bombing of pearl harbor this was the fastest way to end the war. The US could have engaged in continual naval fighting, but with the defeat of the Nazi Empire by Stalin, the US wanted nothing more than to end this crusade right then and there. I do feel bad, but a lot more American lives may have been lost if the US refused to bomb JPN

  • Million mores would have died

    If they didn't drop the bombs the USA would have invade Japan and more Marines would have died so to say they weren't justify is bs they attack from surprise because they could take us full on it's terrible to say no I hope this can change your mind s

  • Yes, we had to end the war.

    Yes, the U.S. was just in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because Japan and Germany murdered many civilians. The atomic bombs were the only way that the war was going to end. The United States could not simply sit by while innocent people were murdered by the millions. The U.S. should have gotten involved a lot sooner than they did.

  • No no no

    Japan was next breaking point. The USA did not want keep on negotiating terms with the formally well received "Uncle Joe" Stalin. UK and USA created a moral panic and used atomic warfare to punish Japan for Pearl Harbor and to let the world know that they had Nuclear power. USA is the only country to use NUKES in warfare and have been trying to stop other countries from doing it to since. This was a result of clashing ideologies. Communism verses Capitalism. It was to stop all negotiations and any perceived demonstration of acceptance of Communism and socialism.

  • America always takes it too far!

    There was no excuse for the devastation the US sowed upon Japan, nuclear bombs release massive amounts of radioactive fallout that will still continue to contaminate the environment and in turn the people years after the device went off. If you look at Chernobyl, the exclusion zone is still highly radioactive, the damage done by nuclear weapons is revolting and there will never be a way to justify there use against a load of INNOCENT civilians.

  • No it was one of the worst acts in history

    The bombing of the two Japanese cities was one of the worst events in the history of the World. The US was not just in using the bomb and the only reason they got away with it is because no one fully understood the extent of what had happened at the time.

  • Not As We Did

    I do not believe the United States was just in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe if we wanted to do this, we should have used weapons that were not nuclear. I believe it is wrong to use nuclear weapons for any reason. They scar the Earth and are very dangerous to our very existence.

  • The US Was Not Just in Bombing Japan

    The United States was not just in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the circumstances surrounding the bombings may be understandable, it is not acceptable to commit an act of violence against innocent civilians when the repercussions of the action are not known. Although the Japanese attacked first, retaliating with weaponry that had lasting impacts on that civilization was unnecessary.

  • Not at all.

    I understand that it was war and sometimes in war you do things that aren't nice and pretty. However, bombing a civilian population that probably had nothing truly to do with the war or attacks is too much. I would not want my city bombed based on US policies in the Middle East. It was wrong.

  • The atom bombs destroyed everything in Japan.

    Millions of Japanese civilians were killed by the bombing in ground zero and within the two mile radius. I understand that they wanted to end the war quickly, but this costed the lives of many Japanese citizen. The U.S army should have negotiated with Japanese officials or just "regular-bomb" the cities since they had important military bases.

    The bombs killed many people indirectly with its deadly radiation poisoning. If we never resorted to this, the rest of the world would've had a more favorable image of the U.S.

  • Disproportionate response on our part.

    Japan's Navy and Air Force were already decimated. Their ability to make themselves a serious threat were already dismantled- they are an island nation and without a strong Airforce and Navy they had no military might. The fact that they were too stubborn to surrender was pretty much moot. And contrary to what so many here claim, a land invasion wouldn't have been necessary- we could have just blockaded them.

    Even if one were to accept that a nuclear strike was the best way to end the conflict, the locations chosen were unethical and immoral. There were plenty of places on Japanese soil that would have had extremely minimal body count- or at least a mostly MILITARY body count. Instead we devastated two civilian targets. It is probable that a demonstration of the sheer destructive power of a nuclear bomb and our insane willingness to use it in warfare would have sufficed, even dropped on a lesser target as a "warning". We should have left such a reprehensible thing as targeting a mostly civilian population for a last resort.

  • Against All Killing

    I believe that it is rarely justifiable to kill a human being, and those situations in which it is permissible are only those in which it will save more lives.

    While there are arguments stating that an invasion of Japan would have caused even more casualties, there was no immediate imperative to force Japan into surrender. They were already defeated... If they don't officially surrender, so what? They were already incapable of pursuing further aggression. This isn't even to mention that the masses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily civilians who weren't a real threat to our government anyway.

    I am not specifically opposed to the dropping of these bombs. I am opposed to all U.S. Attacks upon those who posed no real threat to us, including the bombings of Tokyo which caused nearly as many if not more casualties as the two atomic bombs.

  • It was a war crime and it's something that should never be repeated again

    Many thousands of innocent civilians died instantly but even worse so long after the bombing many more died of radiation and sickness. Animals, adults, children, almost everything was obliterated and died. It is appalling what they did. Innocent people were caught up in the nuclear winter that followed from the actions of governments. They never deserved what they got.

    Thankfully, history is something that we can learn from. Superpowers have an obligation to prevent these atrocities from ever happening again. Also we are now wiser as we know how devastating these weapons are.

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