English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Hi ya ppl , were just given a question by my history teacher and just wannted to know where can i find info on " were the United states justifiably right in dropping a atomic bomb on hiroshima and nigasaki. thx

2007-03-18 23:54:02 · 3 answers · asked by duskSoul 1 in Arts & Humanities History

3 answers

Ask the Japs.

2007-03-19 00:01:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The US wanted to stop the Pacific War before the USSR were to join the theater, I believe it was Aug. 8. The US was more interested in keeping the Eastern spoils of war to itself as it had already lost Germany. The US will spend most of the second half of the XX c. conquering (or failing to) East Asia, without concern for its soldiers, the US government has NEVER shown any regard for its soldiers.
Hiroshima was bombed on the 6th and, not sufficing the death of 80 to a hundred Japaneses civilian deaths, the US went ahead and bombed Nagasaki with a slightly different bomb in what has become the bloodiest experiment in history (40 to 60 thousand dead).
Before the atomic bombing, extensive fire bombing had been inflicted on Japan's paper cities. Documents attest to the US intention to conquer Japan much before Pearl Harbor. In fact, the case is often made that Pearl Harbor was provoked in order to continue the US westward expansion that would eventually lead to Korea and Vietnam.
Is the instantaneous (3 days) murder of 150 000 people justified? Well, let me answer that with a little anecdote. When Madeleine Albright (Clinton's Secretary of State) was asked about the million infant deaths in embargoed Iraq, she was asked: Is it worth it?, and she answered: it is. I believe the US gov. answer would be much the same regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

2007-03-19 08:38:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The attached link will take you to some very interesting and relevant articles and documents.

As to the justification - the argument for would be the colossal losses to the US military that would have been involved in a land assault of Japan.

2007-03-19 08:01:25 · answer #3 · answered by the_lipsiot 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers