If you come from America, how do you feel about Hirosima and Nagasaki?

Question

I do not mean to insult anyone here, but, the image of American soldiers cheering their victory over Japan while thousands of innocent people-hundreds of children among them-were dying such an excruciating death was simply appaling...

I'm neither American nor Japanese.

Answer 1

No, I think you're being rather polite, considering what happened. There is no justification at all for using nuclear weapons, except perhaps to deflect an asteroid that would be heading this way. There are other horrors beyond the bombings in Japan. In both Russia and the United States, they actually tested nuclear weapons on soldiers in battlefield-simulated conditions. In Ukraine, when it was part of the USSR, they blasted a hole under the ground to clear a mine and sent miners in to work there within a week. I'm not going to drone on about this. It's all there for anyone to read about.
Fair question! I am appalled that we would do this, and even though it happened before I was born, we should all be aware of it and take steps to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

Answer 2

1- Japan was due to surrender after the first a-bomb. The US underestimated the damage it would inflict on the city's communications infrastructure which lead to a delay in communications with Tokyo.
2- Truman and James Byrne wanted to show the USSR that they shouldn't make too loud a noise over the fate of West Germany.
3- The Roman Holiday theory:

Truman once stated that 'God hates the Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice I guess'

The simple fact is that the Japanese could have suffered a lot more. Curtis le May was talking about razing a city a night until the Japanese surrendered, while under blockade conditions. A speedy end to the war was in the interests of all concerned. I will always think (based on what I've read) that the 2nd bomb was unneccessary, but I think you can just about justify the first as military neccessity.

Answer 3

It is appaling how many people are hurt as a result of war in all countries. Unfortunately it is not a nice thing in any way. That is why it is called war. The atomic bombs were the result of the U.S. warning Japan to stop their attacks in WWII. Japan's attacks also caused the deaths of Americans. Japan was warned several times that the atomic bombs would be used prior to their use. When a country refuses to listen to threats, it has to assume that there can be devastating effects. Although the bombs were dropped by US forces, Japan also has to take some responsibility in the fact that they knew what their consequences were.

Maybe, the japenese have to realize that some of the fault of the horrible effects of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagaski would not have occured if THEIR OWN governments would have considered the safety of THEIR OWN people.

That is life in general, and the effects of war. I prefer peace over war. I believe EVERYONE does. However, war is not a pretty thing. People are hurt, often many innocent ones in EVERY war.

Answer 4

I know you have many answers from many simple minded folk, but I just had to get into this. The war was already won before the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is why there wasnt a retaliatory attack on the US. It was not justified and it killed thousands. For all you WT people that think "just nuking people" is good foriegn policy you should see what the people there looked like afterward. Those cities still have nuclear fallout. Japan is a strong ally nowadays and I cant help but feel like this war didnt have to turn out the way it did.

Answer 5

I'm not sure but I don't think that the american people at the time were very aware of exactly how the people were dying. If you look it up in fact I think you'll find that the media was being censored and the governments news agents were the only ones allowed into Japan to report on what was going on. Funny, I wonder what we'll be hearing in 50 years about what's been going on recently at the hands of the US and certain allies.
To answer your question though, I feel bad that it happened and that people were once again prevented from knowing the truth.

Answer 6

War is he ll. If it had been up to me the atomic bomb would have been dropped in an unpopulated zone as a demonstration, rather than on a city. People who support the bombing say it stopped the war and saved millions of American and Japanese lives, it also stopped Russia from invading Japan, cutting it in two like Germany was for 50 years. The bombings were a tragedy, but they could have been avoided if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor.

Answer 7

I'm not sure the soldiers were cheering their victory so much as they were cheering the war was over. No one not even soldiers are proud of killing innocent women and children unless they are pretty sick individuals. It saddens me that Truman couldn't come up with a better solution. As for Japanese said they would fight to the last person, I would have to say they didn't mean it obviously has they surrendered after the two bombings. I just wondered why they didn't quit after the first bombing?

Answer 8

I guess Pearl Harbor, The Bataan Death March, The Rape and slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans, the death camps all mean nothing.
If the nukes hadn't been used the next step would have been an invasion of Japan which would have killed millions.
So, as an American I fell the bombing of those two cities was 100% justified and the best way to end a war that JAPAN BROUGHT UPON ITSELF!

Answer 9

The US was justfied then. The US would be justified now. WWII was a fight of survival. There were no "innocents" every country was commmitted to victory. Truman simply chose between those who would die at nagasaki, having almost universally sworn to kill all Americans, and American deaths in winning the war through more conventional means. Anyone who thinks the lives are equal, ours or theirs, or that we should have died more so that they died less, does not deserve the freedom to express that opinion since they certainly wouldn't have earned it.

Answer 10

If killing 200,000 CIVILIANS with A-bombs are rationalized then how do you define "Crimes Against Humanity"?

Justification:
1. it was war
2. it saved millions of lives
3. Japanese attacked first
4. Japanese committed atrocities all over Asia
5. Japanese swore never to surrender

Why wasn't the A-bomb dropped in Nazi Germany? They too were responsible for the deaths of millions of lives - civilians as well as combatants. But I guess the glaring difference was that Japan is a homogenous society - one race non-Christian - it would be an 'easier decision' than say Christian, Jewish Germany. Which means it would also be 'easier' to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran, would it not?