Hiroshima..were we justified?

Question

My argument is that it would have been better to use the atomic bombs outside of Tokyo, and say if they didn't surrender, the next one would be on Tokyo.

Some say we shouldn't have used them at all..but if we shouldn't have, how should Japan been forced to surrender?

I didn't say we used them on Tokyo. What I said is if it was up to me, I would have preferred to use one on the outskirts of Tokyo.

Answer 1

ok, let me say that 10 year olds should not be allowed to ask questions.

but here goes.
If you knew your history the leaders of japan cared nothing for their people. when we dropped the first bomb, they did not care. after the second bomb they did not care. they DID NOT care about their people. they believed they were gods. and their people should die for them. just look at the Kamikaze.

second.
the bombs did not end the war. it was after the second bomb the russa signed their declaration of war. (they signed it because they knew we would win. before that they were too scared to sign one.)

Japan knew they could not win a 2 front war. they were worried that both would invade and kill Hirohito. he did not care how many bombs were dropped on their people.

OK, last
did you know that japan dropped anthrax on china durring ww2. no you did not, did you.

Unit 731 was a secret military medical unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that researched biological warfare and other topics through human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) and World War II era. For information on its origin see Kempeitai Political Department and Epidemic Prevention Research Laboratory.

The unit was disguised as a water purification unit. It was based in Pingfang, near the city of Harbin in northeastern China, the region which was then part of the puppet state of Manchukuo. Various Eastern and Western sources estimate anywhere from 3,000 to 200,000 Chinese, Korean, Mongolians, Allied civilians and POWs (especially Russian POWs) were directly or indirectly killed by Unit 731's experiments.


so before you go and point your finger at the USA why dont you get your facts straight.
DAMN I HATE THESE 10 YEAR olds who are stuped.

Answer 2

While it is true to say that we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war, I believe that there were two more specific reasons. First, we wanted to punish the Japanese for Pearl Harbor and the very nasty way in which they fought in the Pacific. The details of this fighting are well documented. Secondly, we wanted to prevent the Russians from occupying Japan, something they were intending to do.

The second was clearly effective and the first caused the Japanese to surrender, although some may argue that they would have anyway.
The real issue is that few people, if any, understood what the bombs would really do, despite there having been a test firing. The devastation was horrendous. However, Americans reacted with glee at the Japanese being punished, even though they didn't see the real pictures.
I can tell you stories about how an American soldier cut off the ears off the remains of a Kamikaze pilot. When taken to Captain's Mast for doing so, he was asked by the captain if what was in the jar were human ears, he replied, "No Sir! Them's Jap ears!" The Captain was not amused.
Though not universal sentiment, I suspect that this was very widely spread, especially on the Japanese side. The point is that when you are convinced that the other side is sub-human, then justification is easy. When people become real human beings, then what does justification really mean. It is the enigma of war in its essence.

Answer 3

We should have used them the day after Pearl Harbor. Then there would have been no death march to Bataan, no Iwo Jima, and no kamikazi pilots. ( Which was an old time suicide bomber). If we had the bomb then and we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then maybe Hitler would not have killed across Europe too. No gas ovens, no "medical experiments", no torture chambers. All you can do is see where we could have been better. Let me invite you to visit a convention of the MOPH, that is the Purple Heart veterans. I met a man who lost seven fingers. On the road to Bataan, they cut off a finger a day for amusement. on Iwo Jima, they captured a young marine and cut offhis penis andstuffed it in his own mouth. But perhaps you are right, if we had been kinder and just warned them we'd bomb them, when they got through rolling on the floor laughingthey would have stopped being so mean!

Answer 4

Well if we wouldn't have dropped a bomb on Japan, then I don't they ever would have surrendered. As far as giving warning to Japan before unleashing the bomb, I think there's 2 reasons for that. First, they didn't do that for us before they blew up Pearl Harbor. They attacked us and killed hundered of soldiers and innocent men, women, and children. 2. I don't think anyone at that time, Roosevelt included, knew how devistating the A-Bomb would be. Roosevelt was in total and utter disbelief when he saw the power Oppenheimer had created. We still don't know, to this day, what all the effects of a nuclear fallout will have on living tissue.

Answer 5

I always believe hindsight is always easier.
making the bomb was not that easy and materials for making one was much harder than now. the equipment crude and the danger to workers was not really recongnized yet. the hiroshima and nagasagi bombings were terrible and hopefully it never happens again. i think it was in a way an experiment that was a continuation of making the bomb: what is the effect of a bomb like this?
was it right to play with people's lives? maybe not but there was a lot of hatred of the savagery of the war and the losses in battles on each island. japan was prepaired to have every citizen armed for an invasion with some sort of resistance. they were planning to cause as many casualties as possible when it happened. they just were not planning to have massive losses without any to the enemy.
I believe that even though today we would not accept it, it was acceptable for the times. i did not always feel that way but have evolved with how i saw the terribleness of that historical moment.

Answer 6

Germany and Italy had already surrendered and Japan knew it had lost. Germany and Italy surrender 4 months before Japan!

The bombs might have aided the end of the war, but there should have only been one dropped and it should have been on a military target. Neither were. We just vaporized 100's of thousands of women and children, and watched another 100's of thousand die of Radiation poisoning.

The president was told it was a military target. he was lied to.

The scientist who developed fission energy did not want the bomb dropped and all sent a letter to the president! They were afraid what it would start, and they were right!

Answer 7

This question has been answered countless times. The decision to drop these bombs saved tens of thousands (maybe 100,000 + of lives) on both sides. If the USA had invaded Japan (which was being considered), it would have been a blood bath. The war would have gone on for months.

You can thank all the WW II men and women veterans (as well as all the service people in Iraq) that enabled you to ask this question in a free society.

Answer 8

Firstly, although tragic, we cannot put peace-time morality on a wartime situation ... at the same time this was happening there was conventional carpet bombing of cities and most of Europe had been subject t horrendous loss of life on a daily basis ... Hiroshima/Nagasaki was just shocking because it happened over a very short time.

The Bushido code that Japan was following made it inconceivable to surrender against an enemy ... the inability to realistically fight against this type of weapon actually gave them an 'out' allowing honourable surrender - the plans that were in place to resist conventional invasion would have led to a far larger loss of life on both sides (there are a large number of Japanese academics agree with this!).

Remember that this was one incident in a war that killed millions of civilians - many countries were DAILY on the front line. Countries like the US and Japan were very fortunate not to experience the war domestically (yes I know about Pearl Harbour - I'm taking about air raids night after night over years).

Peace out

Answer 9

Here's the thing, were we justified in going to war with Japan in WWII? Yes.

Were we justified in dropping TWO nuclear bombs on Japan....no.

Nagisaki's death toll and environmental damage was enough....we didn't need to drop one on Hiroshima as well.

Here's the thing though....as one who understands the Japanese mentality as warriors.....they likely wouldn't have stopped fighting otherwise.

They are a nation of such pride and national-warriorhood even today...they would have been damned hard to break without a massive strike like the two atomics.

I've been a student of Japanese combat arts for some time, and have trained with some TOUGH sob's over there....and it's simply just a part of them. Their heritage has been that way for a long long time, and it's not soon to change anytime soon.

Were we justified....hard to say.
Was it neccescary....hard to say.

Would we have lost a LOT of men if we'd have invaded the old-fashioned way...yes, thousands.

But did we need to nuke two full cities and choke the land there from production and living-ability for the next several thousand years?

No.

I've SEEN what's left of Hiroshima...and it's not pretty. Just like Chernobyl in Russia....it's HEAVILY polluted with radiation and you can only get so close.

The land is ruined. You can no longer propogate fields, livestock, production of any kind really....and you can't live within a certain mile radius of ground zero....

It's a mess, and we just had to do it twice....

shame on us.

Answer 10

The main reason we dropped the bombs was to make a point to the Russians who were in the process of reconstituting eastern Europe into commie satellite states. Sure it saved American lives by eliminating the need for an invasion, but Japan had no chance and knew it by the time we dropped the fisrt bomb.