U.S. Nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki... justifiably?

Question

Does the American public still believe that the bombing was justified? Or was it tantamount to a war crime?

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." -Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz,

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey

"I'd love to see a reference for the quotes of Nimitz and Leahy... even a date and the context."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Opposition

http://www.answers.com/topic/william-d-leahy

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Answer 1

August 6th 1945 and August 9th 1945 were the dates that the bombs were dropped, and Japan surrendered on August 15th... signing the Instument of Surrender on September 05... SO your last quote from the US Strategic Bombing Survey is HIGHLY suspect !!

I'd love to see a reference for the quotes of Nimitz and Leahy... even a date and the context.

I DO know that there are reports that certain groups within the civilian population were seeking peace... but the GOVERNMENT had not at the time of the bombings surrendered... In fact, the MILITARY GOVERNMENT made an attempt to kidnap the Emperor to prevent him from surrendering.

Given the projected numbers of US Losses if an invasion of the Home Islands had proceeded... AND the fact that Japan started the war along with THEIR war crimes... yes, I believe the use of the bombs was jusitfied.

I've been to Nagasaki twice while I was in the Navy... and I certainly hope that we never have to use the damned things AGAIN !

Answer 2

I wouldn't have had a problem with the USA using lethal force against the Japanese military and police, or the Emperor himself.
Since the targets were civilians, you can say it is excessive force. The Japanese civilian had no way to defend themself against the force of an atomic bomb being dropped them. Yes, I think it was unjustified. The attack on Pearl Harbor, as horrible it may be, killed a fraction of the number of people that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did, and most of the people who died in those attacks were military personnel, not civilians. That's the difference. Why didn't the USA target the ones who were doing
the actual fighting, or the ones who were ordering them to fight?
Bombing civilians is a cowardly attack no matter how well you
try to justify it, unless the civilians are hiding terrorists on their own free will. If the civilians are being coerced into hiding terrorists, they shouldn't be bombed, because they are essentially victims, like those who have been kidnapped.

Answer 3

Are you using quotes and a survey to come to some predetermined conclusion the A-bomb was unjustifiable? Whether an A-bomb or not, war is not right in my opinion. People have to go beyond greed and egos to look at the big picture. Different countries/cultures can get along without war or even just ignore one another if they feel they need to.

I guess the over all point is in trying to show both sides.....the Japanese military power took control of Japan over the government prior to WWII. This military power was intent on making Japan a force to be reckoned with militarily. They forced military thought down the throats of each citizen and tortured or imprisoned their own citizens if someone challenged their military brainwashing thought control. Manchuria fell to Japan in 1931 starting off a string of fallen territories to the Japanese. Within a month of December 1937 when Nanking, China fell to the Japanese military, the Japanse had killed up to 350,000 Chinese civilians. Shortly thereafter, WWII.

As far as surrender, the Japanese were not ready to surrender....the Allies originally had planned a joint invasion to land on Japan's very soil and march to Tokyo. At the time, it was estimated a million Americans and half a million British troops would be casualties. Japan had 2.5 million troops and civilians they could use as suicidal defense force when they ignored an ultimatum to surrender, July 26th 1945.

In early August the A-bombs were used needlessly killing approx. 214,000 mostly civilian Japanese. All these numbers of casualties are atrocities. Was it justifiable to kill 214,000 innocent civilians vs. losing 1.5 million troops?

Each individual must decide for themselves about justification or not? But, there's definitely two sides of the atrocity....350,000 innocent Chinese civilians, 214,000 innocent Japanese civilians.

Answer 4

Probably they used the atomic bomb to ensure that Japan will surrender to the US government and not the USSR, since it is believed that in a possible attack of the Red army against Japan the Russians would easily succeed in having Japan to sign a truce with their government and in this way it would be easier to get them under their communist block. Probably they would have done the same with Berlin or perhaps another German and they would have avoided the fact that the Russians were the first to set foot on Berlin. But it seems that using the atomic bomb against a European city would have a very negative effect on the image of the US in Europe

Answer 5

Well it looks like you already have your answer with your research. The bombing of Japan with the nuclear bombs just goes to show that it was/is a war crime. It's like stabbing someone to death in the dark. The victim is defenceless and helpless. Little children then and now are maimed for life. There was no reason, no logic, nothing at all into the bombing of civilians. It was the most horrific act in the military history of that time. It has been 61 years and no one has been brought to any war crime trial, it is a crying shame. All those innocent people died in vain. This crime can't go on being unpunished. I can't believe anyone would want to justify hitting a country when it's on its knees. But then that is what's been happening for years and years and years and continues to happen to this day.

Answer 6

US committed an unjustifiable act against Japan by using atomic bombs. After the axis lost the war in Europe they had no chance of winning the war however the Soviet Union military became the largest and best equipped in the area. Stalin wanted to use this military advantage by taking over all of Europe.Thus the United States used the atomic bombs not to defeat the Japanese (USSR already set up a front to attack Japan) but to scare of the Soviets which worked.

Answer 7

The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 8

If you click here on the link you can download for free Axis and Allies: http://j.mp/1BDxvtX

it's completely free and it's very fast to install
You can pick to be either the Allied powers of Britain, Russia, and America, or instead opt to play as the Axis powers of Germany and Japan. Either way, this is a worldwide conflict where you'll have to learn to play strategically across two fronts, no matter who you’re playing as.
It's a really nice game.

Answer 9

Neither Little Boy nor fat guy have been somewhat efficient, not by making use of the factors of right this moment it is. Little Boy had a yield of between 13 and 18 kilotons collectively as fat guy's yield became into 21 kilotons. KILOTONS, that's what you're gazing here. this means that collectively as the atomic bombs have been better than time-honored bombs used throughout WWII, they have been some distance weaker than a hydthe nuclear bombs of right this moment, that are hydrogen bomb which has a yield in the megatons. The forumla for determining the potential released is 4.184 x 10^12 J for a kiloton and four.184 x 10^15 J for megatons. In otherwords it is 4.184 circumstances 10 to the twelfth potential joules for kilotons and four.184 circumstances 10 to the fifteenth potential joules for megatons, the potential you're taking that ten to nicely-knownshows merely what number joules of potential are in contact, the main potential bomb created to this ingredient has been the Tsar Bomba created by making use of the Soviets. It examined at 50 megatons yet in concept could have reached a hundred megatons. merely at it is examined potential it became into in a position to wreck gadgets as much as 620 miles away. And every physique interior sixty two miles could have suffered 0.33 diploma burns! in comparison Little Boy's blast radius became into approximately 2 miles previous which merely gentle harm became into dealt to structures. Little Boy and fat guy weren't meant to wipe Japan off the map, yet they have been meant to scare the eastern government into resign. Had a bomb with everywhere close to the potential of a few of right this moment's hydrogen bombs been used, then that could have been extra something to wipe Japan off the map. however the fire bombings of Tokyo and different eastern cities did extra property harm on the fee of extra lives than Little Boy and fat guy mixed.

Answer 10

No, the Japanese most certainly did NOT sue for peace before the atomic bombs were used !! Where did you get that information ?! Now do you know the answer ?