Wasn't the A-bombing of Japan a good thing? So why apologize for, and villify their use?

Question

Or rather, wasn't the use of A-bombs better than what would have happened had they not been dropped? Japan was at the time a country every bit as evil as nazi Germany, and they weren't going to surrender without a full scale invasion which would have killed millions. And even the bombs themselves didn't do nearly as much damage as the firebombing of Tokyo and the use of conventional bombs during the prior weeks. So in fact, the A-bombs ended up preventing years of more war and death. People who point to America's use of them during WWII as an indictment ignore this.

Answer 1

It was a great thing for the Allies. Not so good for the japs, but they started the war by attacking Manchuria in 1931, so they don't deserve any sympathy. It had to be done. Otherwise they woudn't have surrendered. They would have fought to the last man/woman/child if the Allies would have invaded their homeland.
The Atomic weapons dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were very destructive. They baisically totally destroyed these two cities. Here are some stats from Wikipedia.

"At 08:15 (Hiroshima time), the Enola Gay dropped the nuclear bomb called "Little Boy" over the center of Hiroshima. It exploded about 600 meters (2,000 ft) above the city with a blast equivalent to about 13 kilotons of TNT (the U-235 weapon was considered very inefficient, with only 1.38% of its material fissioning),[10] instantly killing an estimated 70,000–80,000 people. Of this number, there were approximately 2,000 Japanese Americans who died from the blast and another 800-1,000 who lived on as hibakusha. As U.S. citizens, many of these Japanese Americans were attending school before the war and had been unable to leave Japan.[11] At least 11 U.S. POWs also died.[12] The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile), with resulting fires across 11.4 square km (4.4 square miles).[13] Infrastructure damage was estimated at 90% of Hiroshima's buildings being either damaged or completely destroyed."

"According to some estimates, about 70,000 of Nagasaki's 240,000 residents were killed instantly,[28][29] and up to 60,000 were injured. Other estimates say about 40,000 dead and perhaps 50,000 injured.[30] The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile), followed by fires across the northern portion of the city to 3.2 km (2 miles) south of the bomb.[31] The total number of residents killed may have been as many as 80,000, including those who died from radiation poisoning in the following months."
"...it is estimated that by December 1945, as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects.[1][2] In Nagasaki, roughly 74,000 people died of the bomb and its after-effects with the death toll from two bombings around 214,000 people."
"The March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo may have killed as many as 100,000 people."

Answer 2

The first two times was bad enough but was considered the lesser of two evils at the time.

And a resounding NO to people who think every country that wants one does should have the right to have one.

The world doesn't need more irresponsible leaders or terrorists with access to nuclear weapons.
When is the world going to wake up to the fact that Muslim extremist worship and glorify death and its the more the merrier with them.

Answer 3

IMHO, the A-bombs were used correctly from a strategic point of view. It effectively ended the war, not only for the American troops but also for all the Asia fronts. It saved many many innocent people from death and suffering.

From the humanity perspective, it is a milestone that recorded a powerful weapon used on the human. The atomic weapon has more aftermath effects on the victims then the initial destruction. There were people died because of radioactive fall outs years and decades later. That was not that humane. So in that regards, it deserves some resentment and sympathy for those victims, especially many of them were civilians.

Answer 4

Yes the bombing was good, very very good, of Japan,
as they had to be stopped, and the war had to end.

Going by your argument honey,
Now If the wars have to stop, America has to be bombed, Thats what u want right, Bigger bomb to stop smaller bombs.

Some one will surely Bomb America because of this @ss hole prez of yours, Watch it honey, If ur concience is dead, so be it, But by the Grace of the lord there are many who still think rationally, which is why America is safe as of now,

If u push people, everytime and every where, You will be the ones who might be refugees, LOL
Remember the Day Catarina Hit New Orleans?
People were scattered like moths, Hungry, dieing, dead, sick, homeless, You should have shown your expertise there, The US govt should have shown its readiness for eventualities there, and thier powers were to have been put to use,
What did u see instead?
No help, little help, Late help, and that too firing on hungry people who were opening flooded super markets for food,
And the " Face of poverty in America is Black" is what one of your own Rev bishops said,

You were just blown, outta your thick skulls, You couldnt do a S h i t, about it, What are you, Black, Hispanic, White, Red, Ha,

Put your own house in order before bombing others, Or Bomb the churches or GOD cause the hurricane screwed up New Orleans, and he was directly responsible,

Bush said in his speech that it was an act of God.
There may be many more acts of God pronounced if opression exceeds and continues.

You will also be a contributor cause you have sold your soul to the devil, your concience is dead, So fear the time when your own anologies may be used against you, Then you cant even complain to GOD.

Answer 5

You are right. The atomic bomb was used so that there would be no full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland. Such an invasion would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The use of the atomic bomb cannot be referred to as a "good thing", but in this case, there was no other option.

Answer 6

People are afraid of atomic bombs and nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. I think, although at the time it was the right decision, people need bright lines. They want to say it's NEVER okay to use WMDs.

But they can't have that stance at at the same time say the use of atomic weapons in Japan was okay. So they apologize for it and say it was wrong.

Answer 7

It ended a war, and since then the US has made sure that no other country deploys a nuclear missile. I think that if that had not happened, we would all be blown to smithereans right now.

Answer 8

no, japan would of surrendered, with out incinerating 10's of thousand of civilians no full scale invasion. after Hitler was taken care off, the attention of all the allied force was on japan

Answer 9

It was not at all a good thing, dont confuse a good act with an act of atrocity that has to be done. Sometimes people have to die, and its just never a GOOD thing, but sometimes its required.

Answer 10

Stopped the war 5 years early I reckon. They also should have dropped another ten on the next ten biggest cities