atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question

we've been reading about this in my english class and this has always interested me but do you think that as Americans we should feel shame for this or do you feel shame for being from a place that killed many innocnet people..or do you think it was what was neccessary?

Answer 1

My opinion:
Americans did this basically as a swift way to end the war to prevent more deaths.
First thought is that the Americans were practicing what i call 'rational selfishness'. They weren't trying to save more lives by dropping the A-bomb, but were trying not to risk the lives of her own soldiers at the expense of the Japanese citizens.
But look a little further and one would realise that it wasnt exactly America being unreasonable.
Japanese culture, at least at that time, believed in death before dishonor, and many, if not most Japanese would have commited Seppuku or Hara-Kiri to prevent their bloodline from being stained.
Another arguement for the Americans would be that they did drop a test bomb on an island near Japan to warn them to surrender or face its wrath. And Japan did not meet that ultimatum.
But eventually, think carefully.
The Americans dropped the bomb to end the war. But its effects are being felt even today. Radioactivity continues to plague the society with deformed people and babies...

In all, it could be said that the Americans were more or less justified to have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply because it would have been vengance for her people and the best way to end the war in her own interests.
However, it was also selfish because of the negative repurcussions it brought to Japan.

Answer 2

The reason given at the time, was a final invasion of Japan would cost one million casualties. This assessment was given by the military, thus the decision to use the A-bomb was put into play.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg ? Was the military directed to make such an assessment as an excuse to use the bomb, or was the decision to use the bomb made after the assessment was analyzed ?

In any case, information recently released from the archives of WWII, and shown on the history channel, reveals that Japan had it's own WMD and was planning on dropping this device over San Francisco. The bomb on Hiroshima brought those plans to a screeching halt.

If this is all true, my belated feelings are the bomb was justified !

Answer 3

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 4

In January of that year an attempt was made to force Japan to surrender by conventional bombing of Tokyo, the firestorm killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. It didn't work because conventional bombing was something the Japanese could understand and accept. The atom bomb was something with which they had no experience, and forced them to accept the reality that they were facing actual extermination. All nations are founded on the murder of innocents, that is a matter of reality, not a source of shame.

Answer 5

If you read more about it you will find that President Truman made the decision to drop the bombs because the Japanese islands had virtually been destroyed and an invasion was about to happen. Had we invaded without the bombs there might well have been millions of people killed. More people would have died in Japan under such conditions than in the A bombs. As horrible as they were those bombs caused Japan to finally give up and stop the war thus saving countles Japanese lives and, of course the lives of Americans and our allies.

Answer 6

War will always have casualties, and at the end of the day it was done for a reason. We shouldn't forget about it, but it was a long time ago, and there is no hostility between the WWII nations now. We should try and get on with living together in peace and harmony. We as the Allied Forces shouldn't feel shame. It was war!

Answer 7

nope, Japan struck the US by surprise first and killed many americans in Pearl Harbor. Was an A-bomb completely necessary, probably not, but look at Japan now. It's a wealthy country and an ally to the US. It was a war so there is no shame.

Answer 8

Many more innocent people were saved by those bombs.

Japan did not want to give an unconditional surrender. The US was going to invade Japan. Japan was getting the civilians ready for the invasion. If the islands the US captured were any indication, then it would be a bloodbath for both sides. Upon seeing the devastation that the US could inflict upon the cities without even setting foot there, Japan realized that it was all over and gave the unconditional surrender. There are millions of soldiers and Japanese who owe their lives to those two bombs.

Answer 9

English class? why are you reading about history in English class?

No we should not be ashamed.

you should be ashamed for asking that question without actually looking up all the facts.

had the two bombs not been used (by the way, the original targets were German cities, but they surrendered before the bombs were ready) then there would have been an invasion of Japan, estimates claim that 1-2 million soldiers would have died, 10-20 million Japanese would have died...

so we should be ashamed of 50000 dead ending the war vs. millions of people dieing, razing japan to the ground and possibly obliterating any hope for an economic comeback?

English you learn to read and write, history you learn the past.

Who ever your English teacher is should have his/her teaching accreditation reviewed.

Answer 10

It was necessary to save a lot of American lives, basically that of our landing troops. Unfortunetly innocent civilians get killed but it is the way of war. If we would have invaded with landing troops American casualties would have been extremely high. As an American and ex naval officer it was necessary, and I do feel shame for the innocence that was lost but that comes with war.