Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki immoral?

Question

Let the debate begin!

Answer 1

I'm sure the Japanese will not agree with me, but if you could save 10's of thousands of lives by killing thousands that certainly sounds moral to me. The invasion of Japan would have cost more Japanese lives in the long run, and many, many American lives. It would also have devastated larger areas of Japan than were destroyed by the bombs.

Is it moral for one man to decide a certain race or religion should be wiped from the face of the Earth? That's how we got into that war in the first place. (Well, not exactly, but it turned out to be a good reason for it after the fact. Just like I'm sure that in the long run, the U.S. intervention in the Middle East will turn out to be the right decision if we get a handle on the situation.)

If you can use one "guilty" life to save ten "innocent" ones, would you make the decision? Would you consider it moral to have saved the lives of the ten "innnocents"? The Japanese were not "guilty" of anything but bad judgement, and that was just the leaders. But like they said in Star Trek: "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few".

Answer 2

IMHO, it ended the war much faster than it would have gone. Not only it save thousands, if not millions of lives in Japan, US. It saves lives all over the Asia, as japanese soldiers were slaughtering and raping innocent civilians in countries they occupied and invaded.

In the WWII, Japanese soldiers and army were worse than the Nazi. You should check into the history. The way they tortured and killed the people way surpassed what you have heard about the crime commited by Saddam

Consider the Japanese did not surrounded even the first bomb were dropped, they were ready to continued the fight and refused to accept the defeat. If it weren't for the destructive power of the A-bombs, they would very well regroup quickly and go on assault like what happend to Germany after WWI. It would have a WWII part two.

In short, I believe it saved many people's lives around the Asia and the world. Plus with that demonstration of the A-bomb power, I think it came across many people's mind when they think about invading other countries or starting a new war.

Answer 3

It's said that paybacks are a *****. The contrast between the immense number of casualties caused by Japanese atrocities throughout the war and the number of casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are mind boggling.

One lone example among hundreds is the so-called 'rape of Nanking.' Approximately 300,000 Chinese were wantonly slaughtered by Japanese troops just for sport! Then there's the Bataan Death March and the subsequent suffering and death of more hundreds of thousands at Japanese hands. And don't forget more atrocities committed by Japanese troops on the citizens of Manilla in the Phillipines just before they were defeated in that city. Finally, but not least, are the 'medical' experiments done on civilian and military prisoners.

In spite of all that, the United States has been singled out for international censure for ending the war before more millions had to die, both civilian and military.

Answer 4

There really was no other way to end the war in a way in which lasting peace could be secured. Russia negotiated with the Japs after before WW1 after Japan invaded Russian territory. What happened?
Japan strengthened its military and invaded China, South East Asia and Ocenia. There was no reason to believe that a treaty on favorable terms with Japan would have done anything besides give them time to rebuild and start another war. Dropping the bombs helped lead to 60+ years of a peace with Japan.

An invasion of Japan would have killed nearly every Japanese soldier. Add to this the large number of civilians who would probibly have killed themselves or fought US troops, and you nearly wipe out the Japanese people. Captured Japanese plans reveal that they knew where US forces would land, they also planned 3 waves of defense:
*suicide planes, subs and torpedos
*Main army forces fighting to the death
*The rest of the Japanese male populace

Needless to say this may not have worked as planned, but it is obvious that Japanese losses could have rose into the tens of millions (50+ times the number killed by the bombs), and US losses into the hundreds of thousands. The only realistic way to secure peace in the Pacific would be destroy Japan either through unconditional surrender or total anihilation.

It's always regretable too kill civilians, but the Japanese war plans blurred the distinction enough that in their twisted view all were soldiers. Playing moralist is a waste of time, what happened happened. We don't have a personal stake in the descision, and so we are totally unqualified to judge anyone.

Answer 5

I think, under the circumstances they knew then, it wasn't immoral. It probably saved more lives, American AND Japanese, than it cost. The Japanese were willing to fight to the last man. Schoolchildren were being trained to fight with bamboo poles, if necessary. Japanese women were being told that Americans were cannibals, so when Americans landed on their island, they were throwing their babies off of cliffs to keep them from being eaten. The Japanese generals were still planning to continue the war, even after the bombings, but the Emporer stepped in and refused, finally. Also, we didn't know then what we know now about radiation. If we'd known about its long-term effects, we might not have done what we did.

Another point is, Japan wasn't exactly taking the high road, either. They attacked Pearl Harbor before declaring war. They killed thousands of Chinese (remember the rape of Nanking?), whom they considered "inferior." They tortured prisoners of war. And they had bombs in development which were very similar to what we used. I seriously doubt that they would have hesitated to use them in time of war.

Answer 6

That depends on your definition of immoral and your stand on the war. Do you think it was an appropriate course of action, in light of the threat of the Japanese military to the American people? Or do you think it is wrong to target two non military targets in an attempt to win a war, when the price is millions and millions of innocent civilians? Win the war at any cost, as it will save the lives of American soldiers? Or is no victory worth the cost of innocent families who just happened to live in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Personally, I see it as coming down to “is my life worth more then theirs?” I would rather they have dropped the bombs on military facilities, but he fall out would have affected civilians either way. I do think it was immoral to target civilians, but I’m not informed enough to think of another way they could have stopped WWII so quickly. It was a very sad day in history that we had to resort to that line of action. Who else in the world besides America has actually used nuclear weapons against other cultures? We are so afraid of other countries, when we are the ones who resort to the dirtiest fighting.

Answer 7

No, but right now the whole world thinks so. It was war, plain and simple. Did the war end because of it, yes. It was necessary to end the war and more American deaths. Ask anyone over 70 (non-japanese) what they think that was involved in WW2 in some way.

From what I also understand, they were trying to build an A-bomb themselves, as was Germany. We just beat them to the punch.

Answer 8

yes,it is

yes it is even if we do take the history context!
the war is concerned with the japs govt and u.s.(or the aliies)
its not linked with the citizens!

its not at all linked with the children who died then and those who suffered the results of radiation.....

almost all the wars were fought b/w leaders / govts of two sides..not b/w the CiVILIANS and their families

there is always a second choice existed rather than mass killing.
JAPAN NEED TO BE DEFEATED OR BRING DOWN IN SOME WAY..BUT NOT BY HITTING IT FROM A DISTANT PLACE BY BOMBS..THERE IS NO GLORY ABT THAT NO HONOUR! AT ALL.

ONE SHOULD ANALISE :70K+80K HAVE DIED .

I POSE A QUESTION TO U :HOW MANY AMONG THE DEAD ARE TRULY THE ENEMIES? OR HOW MANY WERE STANDING AGAINST THE WORLD PEACE??????

THIS QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED FIRST!!!!!!!!

Answer 9

My answer is yes and no. Yes cause it kills hundred of thousands of civillian and i has the nasty feeling that the american are using them as experiment on how destructive is the a bomb.

No. caused the Japanese brought it among themselves and the A Bomb actually ends the war much earlier.

Answer 10

Inmoral ? no, I think that it was needed, because the japs weren't going to surrender, they were going to continue this war ,the time they could resist, they were extremely fanatic, like the irakis, and were kamikazes, so , only such a terrible bomb , was going to make them thinking well about the future of their country, more americans' life would be wasted , with continuing the ******* war, this war would had to finish like this, anyway.