Did the US have the right to use the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II?

Question

needed for a class i am in right now.. please help ASAP!!

Answer 1

Since we were at war....a war started by the Japanese with an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941....using any weapon to end that war was justified.

Although the Japs deny most of it, their behaviour during their war to steal land for their empire included the barbaric, brutal and blood-thirsty murder, rape and torture of millions of innocent people throughout Asia.

What is really sad is that we didn't drop the bomb on larger cities like Tokyo, wiping out millions of the bastards and taking care of the "Emperor" at the same time. But, no, .....we were trying to be humane in our target selection and only picked 100,000, even though they proved they didn't deserve it again and again. The truth is, we were merciful....a lot more mercy than they would have shown us if they won.

Here are some reasons why dropping the bomb was the right decision:

1. The Japanese Navy was defeated, the Army was not.
The 20 million man Japanese Army was far from defeated. In fact, they were in China and we really had not even started to fight them. They were armed, they were fanatical and they would have gotten to Japan to defend the homeland on bamboo rafts if need be, taking years and maybe millions of American and Allied lives to do it. In Japan, women, children and the elderly would have resisted us, so it would have been very, very ugly, having to kill millions of women and children. Dropping the bombs SAVED MANY JAPANESE AND AMERICAN LIVES!

2. The USSR. Russia had always been an enemy of Japan and they coveted the same areas in China. Stalin just ended his war with Germany and had 50 Million peasants in uniform and well-equiped thanks to the US supplying arms to them. They had also just finished the Trans-Siberian railroad and Stalin was going to send millions of soldiers to "Help us" fight Japan, while they occupied and claimed Manchuria and maybe parts of Japan. It would have been a disaster to let Russia enter the Asian war...DROPPING THE BOMB KEPT THE COMMIES OUT OF JAPAN. It was bad enough that we had to deal with Mao and his murderers in China. Having Russia in the war was unthinkable. We needed to END THE WAR as fast as possible.

Answer 2

VERY complicated question.
Did we have the "Right?" The Right we had was to end the War more swiftly than if a ground invasion had been necessary. More American AND Japanese deaths. Remember - THEY started it, and not just against us - think Manchuria and the atrocities committed there - China - Korea - the entire Far East.
They were of a completely different culture - one which venerated a so-called "good" death, which translated into "go ahead and kill yourself as long as you take a bunch of them with you." Think "Kamikaze."
They considered their Emporer a divine deity and he didn't even know what was going on.
Death in what they considered a "good" war was honorable and was sought after - they were more interested in the afterlife than going home to their wives and/or mothers.
Japan did not have enough room or raw materials - so they went out and TOOK them. Not nice.
As to the two atomic bombs. No one knew what they would do. Particularly when referring to the after effects. I do not intend to diminish the horror of what the civilians in those cities endured, but, yes there's always a "but," if their leaders would have surrendered months earlier when the war was CLEARLY lost, the decision to drop them would not have to have been made. To suggest we dropped them on Japan because the Japanese have different features and slightly different skin tone is absolutely ludicrous. The bombs were NOT dropped on Germany because they weren't ready to go yet AND the Germans had just enough sense to surrender before we annihilated their country and culture. It had nothing to do with prejudice against the Japanese.
To understand the need to drop the bombs, one must understand the Japanese. It's the ONLY way the War could have ended. They would NEVER have surrendered otherwise.

Answer 3

Absolutely. Understand that this was an era of 'total war.' The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor, had committed atrocities throughout Asia, and had shown a complete unwillingness to surrender - in fact, the Bushido code that the Japanese were brought up under between 1905 and WWII taught unquestioning loyalty and obedience to the emperor from ALL Japanese citizens, and also taught that to die for the emperor was the ultimate act of loyalty.

This was borne out on Saipan, where women and children, instead of surrendering to American troops, threw themselves off cliffs. And on many other islands, Japanese soldiers fought to the last man rather than commit the treason of surrendering.

The Japanese were in fact training their citizenry, men, women, and children, to resist an invasion of the home islands with any means at their disposal - sticks, rakes, bare hands. The death toll on both sides, in the event of an invasion would have been staggering - some estimates place it in the millions. So the choice to select two smaller cities as a 'demonstration' was both pragmatic, and, believe it or not, humanitarian. Significantly fewer people died than if we had been forced to invade.

Did we have the right? I can't answer that question. Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely yes.

Answer 4

It was the way to end the war with least casualities.

Someone pointed out it was used as a threat to Russia-I agree with this, but do not think it really affects the necessity of the bomb droppings. Dresden was fire bombed to show the Russians what the RAF and Air Corp were capable of (per RAF memos).

The Japanese did not surrender after either bomb, they surrendered after the Russian's declared war. The Russians had already taken half of Europe and had the Middle East. Had they been allowed to fight and take more of Asia then possibly portions of Japan, then the Cold War would not have stayed Cold.
Terrifying the Japanese with awesome air power combined with the Russian military caused immediate surrender. It also let the Russians know that expansion in either direction could result in heavy casualities, many likely in the homeland.

Answer 5

The right? Or the ability and a political priority?
Japan was ready to surrender, and the only sticking point waws whether the Japanese Emporer would have to formally give up all power, thus ending the royal family's place in Japanese society.
By asking for unconditional surrender, many historians, including Ronald Takaki, have pointed out that the US gave itself a reason to drop first the bomb on Hiroshima, and then, two days later, the one in Nagasaki.

Political scientists will also say that Russia was looking to enter the Pacific Theatre, and take large parts of Europe over as the Germans surrendered. The atomic bombs were considered to be American's warning shots to Russia: back off from Japan and Europe.

This set the stage for the Cold War.

On a more personal note: having visited Hiroshima's Peace Park, speaking with the Mayor there, who is a leading figure in the anti-nuclear proliferation movement around the world, and having met several survivors of the Hiroshima bomb, it ould be a tragic mistake to think that anyone has the "right" to inflict such damage upon anyone- but particularly civilians, families, school children, and other innocents who had no responsibility for the actions of their government.

Having seen this, and dropping another two days later is unconsciousable. Nothing can justify such a decision, even at the historical moment that it took place.

Others have pointed out that Japan was chosen over European nations as a way to demonstrate the bomb's use without having to kill Caucasians. Germany could as easily been bombed to demonstrate the bomb's power- or even a test, such as has taken place on Bikini Island, would have deomnstrated the bomb's power to Russia.

Why it was actually dropped is well articulated in "Hiroshima" a book by Cal- Berkeley professor Ronald Takaki. Check it out.

Answer 6

"What is really sad is that we didn't drop the bomb on larger cities like Tokyo, wiping out millions of the bastards and taking care of the "Emperor" at the same time. But, no, .....we were trying to be humane in our target selection and only picked 100,000, even though they proved they didn't deserve it again and again. The truth is, we were merciful....a lot more mercy than they would have shown us if they won."

We didn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of "mercy", but because they were really the only targets left worth bombing. Tokyo and other major cities had been bombed so many times that Air Corps strategists saw no point in utilizing the atomic bomb there.

The atomic bombs did not even do as much damage as massive firebombing raids like Dresden and Tokyo. On March 9, 1945, 1,667 tons of incendiary bombs were dropped on Tokyo, destroying 15.8 square miles and killing 100,000 civilians. Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima 6 August 1945, destroyed 4.7 square miles and killed an estimated 70-80,000 civilians.

But I do agree that dropping these bombs saved a lot of Allied lives, as well as prevented a longer war in which the Soviet Union may have expanded into the Pacific, as well.

To quote the book "Air Power", "Far from agonizing over his people's mounting sufferings as American forces pressed relentlessly on toward the Japanese homeland, far from advocating surrender once Japan's defeat had become a near certainty in the fall of 1944, the Emperor exhorted his commanders again and again to fight to the death...If the Emperor had told them to fight on, the Japanese people would no doubt have fought on".

The atomic bombs were so shocking that they gave the Japanese the chance to surrender while still maintaining their honor. They stood strong through conventional victories and defeats, but this new weapon was so powerful and terrible that they had no choice but to capitulate.

The choice of whether the US had the right or not to drop these bombs is really up to you. What do you think is right: saving US troops at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japansese civilians? Or expending US lives to protect the innocent? You can really justify the answer either way you want (and as you can see, the way you word it makes a difference, as well).

Answer 7

This is not a question of having a right to use such weapon. It is a question of was it the right choice. There are distinct differences between the two.

I will just add that the history you learn and all the facts surrounding WWII, how it started and how it ended, and what happened in the middle aren't complete.

Depending on if you learn it in Japan or in the US, some inconvenient facts are not disclosed and convenient facts are brought to the fore-front. All this means is that don't believe everything you read and taught. Have your own thoughts and explore.

As a starter, think.... The initial attack by Japan was the navy base at Pearl Harbor, correct? A squadron of fighter plane was coming towards it, correct? ...and they didn't notice?

If it was to make a point, why TWO atomic bomb was necessary? One has caused enough death and made a point. According to how Japanese history book, at that point, Japan already had no reserve power to fight, and US knew it.

Not justifying either side, it will give you an additional dimension when you contemplate your rights question.

Answer 8

It wasn't neccesarily the right just more the lesser of 2 evils we had to show japan how serious we were about ending this war and where we stood at with the power to do so. it was better to use the bombs on those 2 cities rather than tokyo less lives lost.truman also weighed the pros and cons of just sending in ground troops to tokyo it would have been bloodier,more lives lost including that of our own.

Answer 9

for the end of world war II . united states & japan, It was also the first time the nuclear bomb got used in the world. It did WAY TO MUCH DAMAGE. But Japan didnt have a right to bomb U.S. either. But after the nuclear bomb scare. Then Russia got paranoid, & got nuclear bombs back then also. Thats when the arms race started between u.s. & russia. When President Reagan got to be president, him & President Gorbichev of Russia. cut the arms race in 1/2 .

Answer 10

Yes. The sneak attack at Pearl Harbor caused us to go to war with Japan. Using the atom bomb to end the war saved many American warriors as well as many Japanese who would have resisted the invasion forces until their death. The minimal damage to the rest of Japan allowed them to become the economic power that they are today.