Was the United Statest justified in using atomic bombs in WWII?

Question

Yes or No? Explain why.

Answer 1

YES.. Well... It did take TWO of the suckers before the Japanese figured out. “Hey, these guys are seriously wanting to win this war.”

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

Definitely, remember an incendiary raid onTokyo killed more Japanese than the Bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Japan was not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and her treatment of Prisoners Of War, Occupied Persons was Brutal to the extreme.

Just this week a Former Japanese Navy medic has admitted to cutting out the hearts of Filipino Civilians & performing amputations on healthy limbs while they were alive for anatomy experimentation.

It's easy from the safety & smugness of 60 years later to say it wasnt justified, but it Ended the War earlier than predicted, ans SAVED both American & Japanese lives.

Operation Olympic/Downfall/Coronet had Casualty estimates of over One MILLION dead the first weeks of the invasion of Japan.

The Japanese were fanatical to the end, even after the Atomic Bombings, when the Emperor recorded a Broadcast of surrender, a coup by officers broke out. They still wanted to fight on to the Death.


Ask any World War II Veteran of the pacific campaign whether they feel sorry for the Japanese......

Answer 4

Dropping the Atomic bomb on Japan actually save Japanese lives.
The fire bombing of Tokyo actually killed more Japanese than the Atomic bombing at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It was roughly the equivalent but slightly less that the total of both of those cities.
All the Japanese had to do was surrender and they could have avoided those two atomic blasts, so there is where the fault lies, not with the US Government. It was already clear that Japan was militarily defeated, their forces had been driven from the Philippines, China, and most of the many islands in the Pacific.
I don't know that an approximate number has ever been totaled, but the Japanese probably killed more civilians (Chinese, Philippine, and others) than the 80k from the bombings.

Answer 5

We lost thousands of Marines on Iwo Jima, more on Okinawa. The Japanese fought to the last man. We had ring bombed Japan with conventional weapons and wiped out whole towns. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese were killed. Yet the Japanese people still supported the war effort. The prospect of an invasion of the mainland promised millions of casualties on both sides if not outright genocide of the Japanese nation. So Truman decided to raise the shock value. Two bombs...two cities....one peace treaty. Japan lives to thrive another day.

That was the logical answer. For the emotional response, ask citizens of Nanking or Manila or the Bataan POW's how they feel about a few Japanese lives. They can better argue the moral ground of dealing with a government and people who place so little value on non-combatant life.

Answer 6

Yes. The shock and realization by the leaders of Japan saved many times more lives than well lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let us not forget that the fire bombing of Tokyo in February 1945 killed more people and the fire bombing of Dresden, Also in February 1945, killed nearly as many. ' The Japanese War History office estimated that the incendiary bombing of Tokyo led to 72,489 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the firebombing of Dresden.'

Answer 7

As grave and sad as it was, no body really talks about the fact that more people were killed in the bombs we dropped on Germany than those two bombs on Japan put together. But if we didn't do it how many more people would have died. It ended the war.

Answer 8

Realisticaly? Sure.. War is a nasty business.. (its supposed to be) Now if we the USA had have lost that war and used those Nukes.. it would have been our leaders and generals in the Hague trials instaed of the Nazi leaders.. (Oh come on The Atomic bombs were the first and formost WMD ever actually used in any war to date.. and who did it?? Umm the USA)

The point of war is to win.. by any means necessary.. but only the winners write the history of said wars.. what can i say? Except war should be avoided at all costs..

You werent a histor major were you (and i'm guessing not military either) Japan A-bombs were mostly civilian targets (Hirosama & Nagasaki( and we dont really have a much better histor in Germany.. Ever Hear of Dresden?? mostly Civilians again.. winners win loosers loose.. had Hitler won.. Our leaders would have been tried & hung on war crimes no question...

But as i said it only counts if you win or loose..

All Y'all be damn glad you never elected me president..(as i've said to many before) i'd end this damn war we have going on from remote control.. we have nukes (I know my first MOS was Nuke missle tech USRA) I'd hit Iran, N Korea, Syria, & Lybia & Afganistan (I still wouldt have hit iraq.. no point...) and i would have mad a deal with China to do it and divvy up the world in the first place to do it... (they get half i get half.. get it??)

So be damn glad you elected that idiot BUSH instead of me.. because my war would only last 4 days max (more likely 4 hrs)... and after that 4 days there would be a def winner.. not like this crap..

I'm against war.. but If I'm gonna play war.. I play it to win.. just like I do in my personal life..

Answer 9

Yes. The dropping of the bombs saved at least one American life. Considering the nature of the enemy at the time, that made it well worth it.

Answer 10

Yes. My father in law was slated for the invasion of Japan if we had not done so. They expected the men to die so quickly and in great numbers that he was not even assigned a unit. If he wasn't here, my husband would not be, and neither would my son. So, boom, here you guys go.
BTW:
No Pearl Harbour, No Bataan Death March, No bombs.
OOPS! The first two did happen, so boom, boom

"Is deliberately killing hundreds of thousands of civilians justifiable? "

Um, I really hope no one answering this is Jewish.

Answer 11

As horrible as the destruction was, dropping bombs on Japan saved lives in the long run on both sides. The only reason Japan surrendered, is they did'nt know how many A-Bombs we had.