Are Americans regretted of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? would they do the same today without internal opposition?

Question

Outside US, people believe that Americans don’t care about the genocide in Japan, and that they are always justifying it ‘rationally”. How do Americans see it? Would they do it in the middle east?

* In other countries, people belive that it was a "experience" because the war was already finished. And USA used 2 atomic bombs. I can't believe that you really see it without thinking in the inoccent people that had to face that tragedy. Isn't it nazism (kill people because they aren't american, like they were a lot of animals)?

This rationallity is similar to the speech of Osama Bin Laden. He justify WTC the same way I'm seeing here.

Answer 1

It's an interesting question. As a young Canadian, I always saw the bombings as the ultimate single terrorist attacks in world history, as completely inhumane.

When I got older I realized that some Americans don't think this way, that they see the bombings as justified to end WW2.

I still find it hard to believe that some people can think that way, but the world is full of mentally ill people, so that's how it is.

It's said that what we get most upset about in others is what we fail to see in ourselves. This can be applied to a larger scale too, not just the individual. The U.S. sees "terrorists" as the enemy. Do I need to say more?

Answer 2

I think Americans have regretted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs since the 1950s.
Also, you must know that the American people did not know about this attack or even about the weapon until afterwards. The atom bomb was very secret until then.
However, when I have talked to my mother and father, who actually remembered the war, they did not regret it. My father was in the army and would have been sent to invade Japan, with tens of thousands of other soldiers. Japan was actually defeated already, but refused to surrender. If there had been an invasion of Japan, many more would have died (Americans and Japanese) than died from the bombs. They blamed the Japanese government for continuing to fight "to the last man" when there was no more hope of winning.
After the war, Japan and the USA became friends.
I never heard this explanation, though, from anybody but my parents. Everybody who was born later, looked at the horror of the explosions and, I think even more, the radioactive fallout. They never wanted to see such an event again, and blamed the US for bombing cities like that.
Only very recently, I notice that people are looking back into history and thinking that the atom bombs were actually the best solution available at the time.
Believe me, even now the US would be extremely reluctant to use a nuclear weapon with all it implies. If the US were inclined to use overwhelming force, The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan would be very different.
I can't think of a situation now, in which the US would use a nuclear weapon. Maybe I just don't want to think about what kind of provocation could lead to that.
But honestly, I cannot say that the possibility is zero.
But to be honest, I cannot rule out the possibility.

Answer 3

"Genocide" in Japan because of the a-bombs? Sorry, but that doesn't compute and isn't the reality.

More people were killed during incendiary bombings of Tokyo and other cities.

Just because it was an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn't make it any worse than being killed by conventional payload, or any worse than being killed by sword and bayonet like the Japanese did to the Chinese in Nanking.

And the bombs ended the war; otherwise invasion of Japan would have been necessary. And conservative estimates of Japanese deaths from an invasion were in the millions. So, in the end, it saved more Japanese (and American) lives that would have been needlessly lost.

As for the Middle East, there's no reason for it. We're not at war with Iraq, but are allied with the legitimate Iraq government against the terrorist insurgents. So where is there to nuke? If you're talking Iran, we will not nuke, unless Iran does something really, really stupid and use WMD against us or our allies. Then all bets are off.

Answer 4

It wasn't genocide, sorry. We did not systematically seek to annihilate all people of Japanese descent, like the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge. It was a pair of bombings, an action quite common in modern warfare.

The reason we dropped those bombs was actually to save lives, on both sides. At that point in the war, we had only two options: we could use the bombs, or we could mount a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland and conquer it in the traditional fashion.

We wanted to avoid the latter option at all costs, because the casualties on both sides would have been in the millions and would have extended the war for months, possibly years. The United States would have none of that.

The reason we needed to drop a second bomb was simple: the Japanese were not willing to surrender even after the first one. There were talks within their ranks that it was a one-off shot, that the US would be incapable of doing it again, and so they pressed onwards. The second bomb proved, once and for all, that not only could the US use these terrible weapons again, but that they were willing to do so to end the war.

Even after Nagasaki was bombed, many in the Japanese military insisted on continuing the fight. There was even an attempt on the Emperor's life to keep him from delivering his surrendering address. Yet, in the end, it worked: we avoided having to invade mainland Japan, and we ended the war.

Hundreds of thousands died due to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it is a small price to pay to save millions more lives, Japanese and American alike.

Today? We wouldn't risk it. There are too many countries with nukes to fire one off just to settle a dispute and risk a nuclear holocaust.

Answer 5

Winston Church practically begged Roosevelt to enter the war before the attack on Pearl Harbor, but America stayed out of WWII until we were attacked and forced into it. A nation who is attacked and forced into battle has the responsibility to do all it can to end the conflict and save the lives of the soldiers fighting to protect the nation. How many American Soldiers died in the Pacific defending a nation that may not have entered the war if not for being attacked.
Don't forget that Hitler was well on his way to having nuclear weapons too and that he was an ally of Japan.
If the US was committing genocide in Japan there would have been more bombs dropped followed by a landing and an attack on the mainland. As it happened the US accepted the surrender and helped rebuild the nation.
The problem with people outside the US is that they can only see the horrors of war and tend to ignore the facts.

Answer 6

You have to realize that the problem in 1945 was with a crazy Prime Minister, not the Emperor. Japan knew they were facing a losing battle, and yet the prime minister was forcing the war to continue, costing the Japanese millions of lives. There really was no other option at the time.

Most historians agree that the bombs dropped in Japan saved literally millions of lives on _both_ sides. It is not an easy decision, but in retrospect it was the correct decision, and _many_ more people in Japan are alive today because of it.

In answer to your question on whether the bombs would be dropped _without opposition_, that's kind of a moot point. There is always opposition to every military action, then and now. The freedom to disagree is a foundation of the USA.

Would we do it in the middle east? Of course. There is absolutely no diplomacy possible with a religious fanatic group, its either you dead or them dead, its not about land or protecting your home - its about religious ideals this time.

No matter how hard you try, somebody is going to wind up dead, why should we wait for it to happen in the USA?

Answer 7

The japanese would not have surrender and landing like D-day on the island of japan would have been Impossible without almost all of our military being wiped out due to facing a larger force of people in their homeland who will defend it to the death they had boldness like you wouldn't believe how many other groups of people in war have done kamikazi attacks as far as I know none. Bombing is an effective way to lower a groups moral to the breaking point that watch a whole city get wiped out then another because you didn't surrender. but at this point I don't think we would use the nuclear solution unless we where facing global destruction even if we where in another world war. The middle east has not manifested the determination to go through with the jihad so as of right now we don't have an enemy dangerous enough to need to use a nuclear weapon, that and our regular bombs seem to be effective in wiping them out at this point in time

Answer 8

Although tragic and the second one maybe not needed, about 200,000 people died due to the atomic bomb attacks. If the US and allies had invaded Japan the casulties would have been alot higher on both sides. The Japanese soldier fought fanatically and would have fought to the last man to defend their homeland. Experts predicted that 1 million casulties for us alone were possible. That doesn't include all the Japanese soldiers and civilias that would have been killed as well. After taking all that into account I think we did what we had to do to end the war.

Answer 9

People in America do care about what happened in Japan. Even President Truman fretted over the great loss of life from the bomb. But the war needed to end and Japan would only be swayed with the greatest show of strength and power. It can still be argued that the lives of those lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of millions more that would have been lost in an attempted invasion.

America is not the aggressor. But woe to anyone that tries to take us on in battle in defense of our country. We will go after you and we will punish you. The Taliban came after us with terrorism and we have returned fire with a vengence, allowing the establishment of democracy. Iraq shot at our planes and defied the world by not complying with UN demands to allow weapons inspectors. With world consensus, we destroyed the regime and are slowly winning over the country of Iraq.

If these terrorist regimes want to launch a nuclear weapon, they had better be prepared to lose everything, because I think we have alread lost our patience with this conflict. We have spent very little to take out Afghanistan and Iraq. We spent 30% of our economy during WWII, about 15% during the Korean War, 9% on the Vietnam War and now less than 3% on this War on Terror. We have sacrificed very little to this point. Though there is dissatisfaction in the US on the progress of this conflict, we Americans still expect victory and will pay the price to make it happen.

Answer 10

well as unfortunate as it was, it saved lives...we could have won a different way but man more american and jappaneese lives would have been lost, it also should the world just how much trouble these bombs can be, especially if they are in the wrong hands...like iran and things. personally i would do what we call a shock and awe in the middle east, which is like hiroshima in the fact that it is big bombs going off, but not nukes. However mostly anything u do in america there is opposition for. the fact it that in the iraq war we are avoiding civil casualties better than ever, but it costs us. it costs US millitary lives. It also slows things down, if i were in charge it would be over, for better or for worse , it would be over

Answer 11

Amazing how many people repeat the same tired and ill-informed rationalization for the mass murders committed by the US in August, 1945.
President Truman, in his own diaries, acknowledged that Japan was ready to sue for peace! The war was over but for the actual signing of the documents. There was no need to put US troops in harm's way with an invasion of the Japanese mainland.
The only reason the US dropped weapons of mass destruction on CIVILIAN population centers was to send a message of fear to the Soviet Union regarding any post-war moves. Simply put: The US committed the two most egregious acts of terrorism in history to make an evil point!!
As deplorable as the events of Sept 11th, '01 were, they were really just an ugly example of our own chickens coming home to roost.
Read history and stop blathering untrue 'justifications' for mass murder.