Were the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings justifiable?

  • Karma for Japan

    The Japanese thought its okay to slaughter people, to rape people, to use people as test subjects for their experiments, to burn people, to torture people. Well then I say we give them a taste of their own medicine, make them feel what its like to suffer under these circumstances.

  • Darn you Japan!

    I hate Japan and their little cartoon erotic depictions of cat women. If we hadn't nuked them there would be even more Japs, and anyway they nuked Hawaii first so they deserve to get Nuked in the eye! I hate me a Jap and a German, I wish we nuked Iran. I hate Cuba. I dislike, heavily, the Jews and the Republic of Tajikstan and it's neighboring countries...

  • Yes, they were justified.

    The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings were very justifiable. Japan had no business ambushing our country when we were not involved in the war. Japan got what they deserved. I would have been okay if all of Japan was bombed and removed from the face of the earth. If you attack the United States you will be dealt with accordingly.

  • The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings are justifiable.

    The use of the atomic bomb in the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were justified because they caused the war to end. If the war had lasted longer, it would have resulted in a lot more deaths. Japan had already lost the war, and there was no way they could have continued fighting.

  • Yes they were.

    The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings were justifiable. It was a counter attack against Japan after they started the war with us when they bombed Pearl Harbor. There has also been people who have researched this subject and there would have been more casualties if the bombs were not dropped on Japan.

  • Nagasaki and Hirohima Justifiable

    Without a doubt, the United States was justified in orchestrating the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings. We needed to end World War II to avoid letting things drag on. Using the atom bombs produced the results we wanted - making Japan surrender. Plus, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without warning previously, which was an unjustified act.

  • Yes they were

    The people running the Japanese government were warlords who wouldn't of surrendered no matter how long the war was or how many of their troops died. Their only goal was to rule the world, and they didn't care how long it took for that to happen. We had to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because if we didn't, the Japanese may have never surrendered and the war would have gone on for who knows how long. We would had instead invaded Japan like we did Germany, and the death toll would have continued to climb. Dropping the bombs forced the Japanese to surrender immediately so no more American lives were taken.

  • They were a necessary evil

    Dropping an atomic bomb on any city isn't a nice idea, and killing innocent civilians is deplorable, but you have to look at the big picture: If America hadn't dropped those bombs, would Japan have surrendered? Maybe. But it's possible they wouldn't have. If they hadn't surrendered, America would have begun its planned invasion of the Japanese archipelago, ending many millions of lives, and the War would have continued for God knows how long. It's utilitarianism in practice.

    The world also witnessed the might of what an atomic bomb can do, and it was this, I believe, that provided the fear of a nuclear war. If America hadn't dropped the bombs, would America have more willingly dropped atomic bombs on the Soviet Union? Would the Soviet Union done the same? If so, the world could be vastly different.

  • Maybe Hiroshima, but not Nagasaki.

    Some say we should have just dropped the bombs close to them, to show what we were capable of. The problem is that that might not have drove home the message of our capability and how serious we were. Also, we weren't able to produce enough bombs quick enough to drop more if that is what they expected.
    With all that said, i would think they would have surrendered after the first one if we gave them more time. Perhaps we gave them enough time, and the second one was justified? I see it as reasonable, but tend to disagree.

  • Atmoic Bombs Were Not Justifiable

    I do not believe the use of nuclear weapons is justifiable under any circumstances. These bombings may have lead to the end of the war or shortened it, but the effects of that bomb linger on today. As humans, I don't think we should ever really justify the use of nuclear weapons.

  • No, such bombings are never justified.

    The United States did a horrible thing by dropping those bombs on the two cities in Japan and the photos we have from that time show the terror and the results of this activity. There is no reason in the world that civilian people should have been subjected to this horror no matter what the world situation was.

  • Absolutely not justifiable

    Bombing of civilians on a mass scale, while widespread in WW2, is never justifiable. Early on it was proposed the bombs were only going to be dropped on military targets, or islands near Japan, just to show what America was now capable of an force Japan to surrender. The US decided against that, though. They even sent over dummy bombers for a while before dropping the bombs, so the Japanese civilians would not take shelter from the bomber because they were so used to it. Absolutely cold blooded. And *even* if you could make a case about the Hiroshima bomb forcing Japan to surrender, there's no way you could justify dropping a second bomb on Nagasaki.

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