Is the United States justified in dropping the bomb on Hiroshima?

Answer 1

That has been a debated question in almost every ethics class and history class that I have taken.

Was the United States justified in dropping an atomic bomb on a city that was of limited military importance and vastly occumpied with civilians?
We debated this in one of my classes for two weeks and in the end, we were back to where we started.
If you look at it from this view, that the cost of human lives, military and/or civilian, in Hiroshima was minimal. Approximately 80,000 were killed instantly and probably another 30,000 died to to cancers and after effects so you have approx 110,000 dead from this one bomb. The death toll in the Battle of Okinawa resulted in an estimated 50,000–150,000 civilian deaths, 100,000–125,000 Japanese or Okinawan military or conscript deaths and over 72,000 American casualties (these numbers are approximate). This was one battle in this war. If the US would have had to invade mainland Japan, it would have cost at least 3-4 million more lives total if not more. Somebody answered that with the boshido rules of death before dishonor. This is true. The Japaneese people are very honorable even when they are doing something that maynot be honorable. They would rather die at their own hands then to be taken prisioner of war or dishonor the family.
But if you view the dropping of the bomb from a humanistic point of view, the United States killed approx 80,000 civilians all at once whose only crime was being Japeneese and living in Hiroshima. Yes this is a great loss of life and maybe something else could have been done that would have brought Japan to the brink of complete destruction, but would it have killed many more millions of people due to starvation, lack of medical attention or senseless acts of suicide to save the honor of ones family?
All war is hell. There is never an easy answer to the taking of another persons life. I am not saying that if are a solider and you are out in the field and somebody is charging at you with a knife and you have a rifle that you should let that person kill you. You have to always protect yourself and you family. The best thing would be to not have any more wars, but I know that is impossible. It would be nice to not have to fight and kill somebody because they don't agree with the religion that I believe in or because the land that they are on is nicer than mine so I am going to fight them for it. IF people would talk first and try and make some sense of what is going on, then we wouldn't have to worry about debating the dropping of the atomic bomb, or why we were in Vietnam or Iraq or anything.

Answer 2

Yes, the United States was at it's neutral stage before ever participating in WWII until Japan attack against the very peace treaty they signed. Though the U.S. has been hovering to join at the European theater (at least Roosevelt was).
During the war, Japan committed almost very single war crime imaginable, and not just to the U.S. and Allies POWs but also countless civilians like the Chinese and Philippines.
Thought an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. The U.S. knew what they would face if they were to invade mainland Japan. The fanatic Japanese at that time would do anything to kill the invading force. Kamikaze is one point to the radical devotement they gave to the Japanese Emperor. So we just bombed them with the atomic bomb as a serious sign of power. Though there has been proof that the United States did not give a very clear warning (some people wanted to see the affects of the bomb) and that it was a civilian target, not the "military base" that was said in the broadcast after the bombs dropped in the U.S.
Though the Japanese didn't care of the number of refugees they bombed, in frustration that the Chinese military retreated, while they tried trying to get into French territories.
Then the many more war crimes like "medical" facilities where they would test biological and poison gas weapons with people tied to poles at specific areas of the blast site. Nor cared about the many people they dissected alive or pickled. Nor burning U.S. POWs alive when Douglas MacArthur got any nearer to the POW camps, even then the POW camps where nothing but starvation, beatings, executions, and disease. The list goes on.
Odd that still today, the Japanese government did not apologize, not even to acknowledge they had done any of those crimes and they demand an apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the U.S. Though denied one, I wonder why.

Answer 3

A petition by at least half of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project pleaded with the President to not use the bomb on civilian targets, but rather demonstrate a show of force on some unpopulated Pacific island. Would that have forced Japan to surrender? Who knows?

There were several considerations going on at the time, namely:

1.There were some diplimatic feelers via the Swedish embassy from Japan regarding surrender options. Were the militaristic leaders behind the 'feelers' or did it only involve the political diplomats from Japan?

2. The allies took a stance of unconditional surrender which had the effect of hardening Japan's resolve.

3. The USSR was in the process of ramping up their attack against Japan and had the ideas of hegemy in the orient.

4. Many historians and political leaders at the time predicted an early end to the war would save hundreds of thousands of GI lives, especially after their bloody experience on Iwo.

5. I doubt that Truman knew the extent of the Pandora's Box that he was about to open. This did not make it right or wrong, it just points out some of the vague decision-making going on at the time.

6. From a legal standpoint, international law did not address indiscriminate bombing of civilians, via incendiary, carpet bombing or nuclear attacks. The Geneva accords didn't address this issue until 1949 after an uproar over Dresden, Coventry, London, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and other area were raised.

As monday morning quarterbacks, we can easily state that the decision was wrong, based on humane reasons. But to me, a country that would attempt to civilize or moralize 'total war' at the time would most likely be defeated, to me that was the lesson of Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima

Answer 4

Probably NOT but it brought an UGLY war to an end with faniticsthat just would not LISTEN to reason.

It was an HONOR thing!

It started the RACE and it has been a PAIN in the A** since. India, Pakistan, Iran and Israel.

It just stepped the ARMS RACE to another level that NOBODY was prepared to deal with.

If we hadn't dropped we would have lost another 50,000 troops routing the HONOR guys out of their holes.

Today we can do the same thing with "LGO" and target specific targets at will.

There is simply NO need to NUK any country because the technology has just come too far.

We could pull the troops from Iraq and Afganistan and just NUK them and then we would have the clean up, innocents killed and the Ozone layer would be F%^&ed!

The deal is to keep all these third world countries from launching because they can and completely screwing the environment.

J

Answer 5

Some have said that they were about to surrender anyway. A country that believed in honor the way they did at the time of the war? I disagree- they were prepared to die to the last infant. The bomb showed that there was no honor in going out the way they would have. There were still not enough bombs at the time to nuke Japan into submission, but the damage to their psyche forced them to surrender. In a way, The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more Japanese than it did Americans

Answer 6

Many of the yes answers and even the no answers missed one important deciding factor the finally convinced Pres Truman to authorize the strikes. The Japanese propaganda machine had so hip ed the peoples of Japan that they would have met our troops on the beaches with bamboo poles. If you will take notice of the vast underground defenses on Iwo Jima you will see the kinds of defense systems that were planned and built in the home Islands. I have seen the engineering documents of several machine gun emplacements and the associated tunnel complexes. President Truman felt that the most humane way to STOP the war with as few deaths on both sides of the conflict was the one he chose.

Answer 7

It took TWO atom bombs to convince Japan that we were serious, and fully capable of destroying them without them ever having the chance to take us with them. That was why it was necessary; the Japanese mentality at the time was one of mutual destruction, if need be. Once they realized they couldn't even force us into a Phyrric victory, there was no point in resisting. The atomic attack was horrible, but it did actually save both American and Japanese lives in the long run.

Edit: Matrix, you are ignorant. The Japanese would have fought us to the last man as long as they felt they had even the slightest chance of either claiming victory or making our victory too costly. They refused to surrender even after the first atom bomb hit. If anything gives us insight into their leadership's commitment to a mutually assured destruction, that was it. Yes, innocents died. Yes, it was tragic. But it was the lesser of two evils. And just because some of us are enlightened to realize it was the right decision doesn't mean we're gloating about it or taking pleasure in it. The only alternative that would have resulted in fewer lost lives would have been our abject surrender to the Japanese forces.

Answer 8

Do they teach history in the USA any more. Why are you even asking a dumb question like that. Is it justified that we turn trees into toilet paper? Here is a history lesson. I am going to learn ya something. More Japanese were killed in fire bombing before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and they did not surrender. Truman (Democrat President) justly and logically assumed that many people on both sides would die. Therefore he decided to drop the atomic bomb in order to show US power and end the war sooner with less deaths. Many who like to blame the USA distort the facts and revise history.

Answer 9

People are trying to be so PC these days that an incident like Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not likely to come up again but I think it's like parenting. Sometimes you need a great and powerful display of authority to get someone's attention. The U.S. was pretty much keeping out of the war but Japan attacked our soil first. The strike was quick and concise and it put an end to things quickly.

I'm no advocate for killing or war but if one keeps pussy-footing around it's going to lead to more suffering in the long run. Get in and get it over with.

I feel the U.S. was completely in the right.

Answer 10

Absolutely. The Japanese started the war, but America made sure they finished it. Besides, America gave the Japanese ample chances to surrender and they chose to ignore it. America also gave the citizens of Janpan notice to get out of Hiroshima before the bomb was dropped, but the Japanese government was using its propaganda machine to tel its citizens that the war was going in their favor. That means that all the citizens that believed their government and stayed to be killed were actually the result of the government's deceit.

Plain and simple, if the Japanese government had swallowed their pride and admitted defeat, Hiroshima would not have happened. But, then again, if they hadn't started the war, no one would have been killed by Americans.