Was the US morally justified in dropping the A-bomb on Japan in WWII?

Question

why do people assume that I think the US wasn't morally justified when asking this question? many people were not alive when this happened. history needs to be constantly discussed and rediscussed so that we learn from it. history should never be ignored or rewritten.

Answer 1

Yes, the US was justified in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was fighting down to the last man and if this would not have occurred, it is estimated that 1,000,000 US soldiers would have lost their lives. The US was positioning itself to attack the Japanese mainland, so if the bombs failed, the US would have gone in within the next couple of months. Many of us owe our lives to this decision. Don't forget that the Japanese attacked us first with massive casualties.

Answer 2

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.
The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

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.

Answer 3

That's the biggest question in the 21st century. With other countries around the world wanting the bomb, life is standing on shaky grounds. Once the bomb was dropped to end WWII in he Pacific theater, many asked the same question. Was it morally justified? Truman caught heck for his decision and barely pulled out the 1948 US presidential election against Dewey despite his choice. Some say we would have spent another five years fighting the Japanese if we didn't drop the bomb. And some say the US soldiers in Europe didn't want to go to the Pacific. When we dropped the bomb, we were making advances toward Japan. Everyone knew then, however, that landing on Japan would have been a major, major, major battle with millions of soldiers killed. Was the US morally justified? That question would revolve on your interpretation of morals. If you mean by morals, the difference between knowing what is right and wrong, then you have to ask yourself if killing is ever moral. To answer this complex question, I could only give you my viewpoint, I simply don't know and don't have an opinion on the moral issue of this heavy subject. Reason I could see both sides of the big picture.

Answer 4

When Trumans advisors told Truman himself what the death toll would be if we invaded those parts instead of bomb them, he couldn't bring himself to do it, last thing we needed was another massacre on those islands. Now heres a misconception, the US tried time and time again to talk Japan into surrendering and they didnt believe we had the weapon we talked of so we let it loose, first one we dropped they were in panic and the emporers generals wanted to disarm but the military ignored their governments surrender, then we dropped the second one and good night. There were some Japanese soldiers that still didn't give up 30 years after the war.

Answer 5

No. The A-bomb was a weapon of mass destruction, not aimed at a military target.

Having said that, there is evidence that the Germans were sharing nuclear technology with Japan, and that at the end of the war in Europe they tried to send a subamarine with nuclear weapons material to Japan (it was captured, fortunately). Also, Operation Olympic, the Allied plan to invade the Japanese mainland using conventional warfare, was expected to cause at least hundreds of thousands of casulaties on each side. Dropping the nuclear bomb gave the Japanese Emperor a reason to surrender, and the number of lives lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less than would have been lost if Operation Olympic had been put into effect.

Answer 6

If you believe war is moral and justifiable,then all is fair.Nobody talks about the fire-bombing of Dresden which was done for the sole tactical reason of demoralizing the German people.135,000 civilian men,women and children were incinerated.There were no military targets.Was it moral and justifiable ?Hell ,yeah!God Bless Amurca!America was running out of money to pay for the war.People were getting sick of hearing how soon the war was going to be over and being asked to buy more war bonds.It was economically expedient to nuke Japan and they got to try out their new toy on real people,instead of cactuses and dummies.

Answer 7

I dont know. The war would have gone on for five more years, but dropping the atom bombs did have consequences. Nukes became really popular among countries after that. Not all the countries were good.

Answer 8

Of course. Morally justified & war do not belong in the same sentence. Ther's no such thing. War is amoral & incredibly obscene , but sometimes very necessary.

Answer 9

Absolutely, twice. It saved an estimated 4-5 million Japanese/American lives by ending the war before we envaded Japan.

Answer 10

Yes because of the suicidal fanaticism displayed by even the civilians in the defense of Okinawa, the Marianas and other islands.