Do you believe the U.S. did the right thing in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII?

Answer 1

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 2

This is not an easy question nor is it a right or wrong question. Let me state first something that few people stop to consider. The atomic bomb, like the telephone and airplane, was a technological inevitability; someone was going to get to it first, it was only a matter of who and when. Japanese scientists gave newspaper interviews as recently as 1994 where they stated clearly that had Japan achieved a working device it would have been used on San Francisco, there was never any debate. The Germans were also feverishly attempting to develop one as well although it was little difficult for them considering their best physicists had fled to Britain and the US. Both programs were far behind the Manhattan Project, but imagine if one or both of them had actually done it first? Does anyone have any doubt that it would have been used to win the war? Instead of us now debating the morality of the US having used it first? Just something to think about.

The decision to use the bomb against Japan was Truman's, and he did not even know of it's existence until shortly after he was sworn in as president. He gave the final order only after those in his circle debated using it at all. Some believed Japan was already defeated and there was no need for an invasion or a bombing. The Japanese navy was all but extinct in August 1945, their airforce was depleted to planes built out of spare parts flown by poorly trained boys. Others believed it was morally responsible to stage a "demonstration" to the Japanese military under a flag of truce; detonating a bomb at sea under the observation of the Japanese so they could see first hand the fate that would await them if they did not surrender. Others suggested dismantling it entirely deeming it a mistake to have created such a horrible weapon in the first place.

Well it was used, and here's why:

1.) An invasion would have made Normandy look like a picnic in comaprison to the number of casulaties expected. The Japanese had at least 5 million soldiers on the mainland not to mention millions more civilians willing to fight to the death.
2.) The US demanded unconditional surrender, not a "claim we won and leave" policy. We were not going to end the war unless they surrendered.
3.) To have developed a weapon capable of leveling cities and winning the war, and not using it, would have been political suicide for Truman. Secrets don't last forever, eventually it would have gotten out that we had such a weapon but let millions of Americans die in an invasion anyway.
4.) The use of the bomb also served as a show of force to the Soviets, out next perceived enemy. Remember, for three years after the war the US was the only country to possess this weapon. A demonstration of it's destructive power was considered useful to keep Communist ambitions at bay.

So were we right to use it? Like I said there's no right or wrong answer to this. It did end the war and ironically it's use did save lives. But could the war have ended without using atomic weapons or an invasion? Possibly, but not likely. Another thing to consider is those three years where only we possessed it. Did we use it to achieve world domination? In fact was it ever used again in hostile action? No, it wasn't. It wasn't because the US used it first and last to use it against other human beings. No other country has ever used it against others. Had another country developed it before we did I'm not sure that would have been the case. Something else to think about.

Answer 3

There were three targets (each time), allowing them choices for weather conditions and military conditions. They warned them, they prepared them, they tried every other means to get Japan to stop attacking and declare peace.
Even after the first bomb, THEY REFUSED TO STOP! When it was clear they would not stop, we bombed them the second time.

What they didn't know is that we didn't have much more to give, or they still would have continued their aggression. Remember that the Axis had declared World domination as their goal. We were defending. We wanted peace, but Japan was so aggressive, so frighteningly persistant in their idea of their own superiority, that we slowly realized that only a complete and utterly humiliating defeat would stop them.
Anything less, and we would probably be fighting them into the next century.

A lesson we could learn from in dealing with Islamic Jihadist countries.

No more nation building until they surrender completely.

Answer 4

War is never the right thing. Often it is the necessary thing. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not right, but it was necessary. The choice was a few hundred thousand dead vs possibly millions before the end of the war.

Answer 5

Yes, yes I do. We spend way too much time hand-wringing about this. The truth is that our fire bombing campaign killed far more people than either of the atomic bombs. The Japanese proved at Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa that they would fight until everyone was dead.

The thought of actually fighting them in Japan meant the very real destruction of an entire people not to mention the huge loss of life to America and her Allies in the Pacific.

The Atomic bombs finally convinced the Japanese of the true futility of war and that there would be no honor in a nuclear holocaust.

Today America and Japan are tremendous friends and allies and the Japanese have renounced war in a way that is truly an example to the rest of the world.

Answer 6

YES, YES YES,

Have you been to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, I have.

They started the war, remember pearl harbor, no it wasn't a love story like the recent movie.

We would have had to fight house to house, women and children to defeat Japan, millions of casualties combined would have been the result.

Do you realize on one specific bombing run of Tokyo killed more from conventional bombs than both the nuke bombs.

Have you ever been to Japan, I have, I was stationed there on the USS Midway, ironic isn't it, an Aircraft Carrier named after the battle that defeated their great Navy and turned the tide of the war in our favor. The USS Midway was assigned their to protect them. There is an actual treaty requiring it.

Do you think the Japanese Government/People would not want us to use nukes to save their country and way of life against their enemy of tomorrow.

Go and visit there if you are Japanese and asking this question, then you are too young to realize.

You don't think Japan is worried about this idiot in N Korea,
that Clinton and halfbrite appeased and paid off..
You don't think they worry about China, which clit and halfbrite gave top secret missile technology to.

Wake up.smell the coffe.

Answer 7

that is actual we misplaced the ethical extreme floor after use of the nukes on Japan, yet finding at what Truman confronted in 1945, i in all probability would've executed an identical ingredient. to examine the ethical depravity of state subsidized genocide the place the loss of life ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau have been topping out at 2,600 consistent with day or 80,000 killed consistent with month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is finding at diverse scales. The "very final answer" became into the coverage of only one united states of america over the final century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-nationwide business enterprise cartels that allowed it to ensue, the precise being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, between others). no longer only did they finance Adolf, they offered him with Zyclon B for use in the loss of life camps. the yank component of the business enterprise became into no longer tried at Nuremburg, despite the fact that they've been only as culpable, bypass parent. the hearth bombing of Dresden by ability of the 8th Air stress and RAF Bomber Command, led to the destruction of 15 sq. kms which contain 14,000 properties, seventy two faculties, 22 hospitals, 18 church homes, and so on. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. on the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to recommend against following the Geneva conventions and to attack human beings's theory of the Allies declare to absolute ethical superiority. the militia claimed the railroad middle became right into a militia purpose, which it became into, altho it became into up and working a week later. Feb 1945 became into only 3 months remote from would 1945 (end of the Euopean conflict), the top results of the conflict became into no longer uncertain, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000? The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been conflict crimes, genocide additionally should contain civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i nevertheless do no longer think of the Allies have been on the component of the ethical depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews. The bombing of civilians is a super tragedy, none can deny. that is no longer lots this or the different ability of growing to be conflict that's immoral or inhumane. what's immoral is conflict itself.

Answer 8

Probably. It saved Japan from invasion by Russia and the kind of partition that took place in Germany. Also it preserved Allied lives, both civilian and military. Japan held many prisoners and they were poised to kill them when the invasion began. Many report that their treatment improved (and they were able to survive) after the bombs were dropped.

Answer 9

No , it was a war crime on a par with the Nazi's treatment of Russian civilians who they took hostage and shot in large numbers to try to prevent the deaths of their soldiers.
Any country that thinks it is OK to set fire to children is morally bankrupt.
As for those who claim that it saved the lives of Japanese people in other cities it may be so but those people would have had a choice. There was no choice for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There was already a peace movement among the Japanese leaders and the bombs were dropped to finish the war before the Russians got involved after the end of the European war and to demonstrate the effect of the new weapons to the Russians as a warning.
It's often forgotten that there were large numbers of POWs in both cities who also perished.

Answer 10

Do you think Japan did the right thing bombing Pearl Harbor?