Was the united states wrong to nuclear bomb hiroshima and nagasaki?

Answer 1

yeah, ofcourse, why cant they just fight fair?????allways with there technologie, wars should be like this: 1000men from both countries fighting against each other and they only can have a knive of 20cm length as a weapon....the coubtry who loses there first 1000men is lost and have to obey the other country

Answer 2

One way to answer this is to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki physically. People say their bombing ended a war or was an indulgent scientific experiment. However, moral lessons have been learned on all sides. The Japanese people are a great example to all the world in their rejection of atomic weapons after World War 2 with their non-nuclear policy: nonpossession, nonproduction, and nonintroduction of nuclear weapons.

Answer 3

Yes, the US did wrong. come to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see what a terrible thing it did!
If you say that was right, then you don't have blood in your body.
How could American soldiers bomb on the two cities where there were only women, children and old people?
As for Pearl Harbor, Japanese officers were just about to send the message that they were going to attack the island before they did, but they had trouble translating and the message was just late. Did you know that? Well to begin with why did we Japanese have to use English?
After the war they, the Americans destroyed Japanese greatest, honorable and beautiful spirits, americanizing Japan.
Lots of Chinese and Korean people are still against Japan, sadly. But I'm against the Yasukuni-temple visiting of Koizumi. the primeminister.

Answer 4

That question is not fair if judged in today's context. At the time the bombs were dropped the only way to win the war would have been a massive invasion of the Island of Japan. Japan had absolutely no intention of surrendering, and it was conservatively estimated that one million would die in the final assault(many of which would have been civilians).

The shock of such a powerful weapon forced the Japanese to rethink surrender. As horrible the effects of the radiation and fire were, the burning of people by conventional bombing would have been horrible as well. Most people lived in wood and paper houses, and firestorms happened very easily.

It is unfortunate that the bombs had to bee used, but know one will ever know how horrible the alternative might have been.

Hopefully that was the first and only use of nukes, but seeing how full of hate the world is, I think that eventually it will happen again.

Answer 5

Maybe not Hiroshima. Germany was also working on that type of stuff. It was a matter of who would get the bomb first. The US did and that bombing put an end to the war. Bombing Nagasaki was never (in my mind) justified.

Answer 6

There are two sides to this question as you know.

First - An invasion of Japan would have cost tens of thousands of lives on both sides (or more), The dropping of the bombs forced Japan into realizing that it was best to stop the war then.

The other side is that the bomb targeted civilian targets instead of military ones. By the "rules" of war this is illegal (Could be considered a war crime). Also, I read that Japan was thinking of surrendering anyway.

If it were up to me to make the decision, I would have dropped the bombs on a military target. It would have still demonstrated the new weapon and not injured non-combatants.

Answer 7

Using the atomic bomb was probably not the smart thing to do, in retrospect. Yes, we needed to stop the war, which Japan was not willing to do. But at what cost? It killed many innocent civilians who suffer, even now, from birth defects caused by the A-bomb. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But we continue to perpetuate the problem of trying to be the strongest power to be reckoned with, the one with the biggest proliferation of nuclear power in the world. We continue our own nuclear aspirations, by continuing to build nuclear power plants, but refuse to let other countries do the same (like Iran). We know they would use it to intimidate other countries to do what they want them to do. I think we have enough nuclear power to put alot of fear into alot of communistic countries. Now is the time to lead by example. The problem? Our foreign policy sucks. Even now, with Israel, who we are backing, despite the fact that they killed alot of innocent victims and that the UN is trying to create a peace treaty, does not look good for us in the eyes of the UN or other world leaders. The fact that we went to war in Iraq without the UN approval, does not look good for us either. We need new leadership to try and undo the damage our current leaders have done, if possible. Our status as a super power is dwindling. We need change now, desperately. It is up to the American people to bring about change, at the polls.

Answer 8

Hiroshima, no.

Nagasaki, yes.

If you were looking at at least 1 million American casualities, untold Japanese casualities, fighting that could go on for another four or five years or a bomb that could end it all, which option would you take.

The second bomb was unnecessary, but it had to be tested, as it was a different style and type.

Answer 9

The atomic bombs dropped in Japan ended the war in Asia and stopped Japanese atrocities. It was right under the rules of International Law because Japan invaded and occupied different states without no valid reason.

Answer 10

Yes and NO.... I think Harry Truman saved a lot of human lives< Japanese and American, by dropping the first A-bomb, but the second may not have had to have been dropped. I don't think anything like this should have or should be done again.

Answer 11

Yes I beleive it was wrong since the U.S even without a nuclear bomb would have won the war against Japan except that the U.S wanted to show its new deadly weapon to the world.