Why would anybody question the morality of the atomic bombings of 1945?

Question

Obviously these bombings were heroic acts that saved millions of lives.

Contrast Japan and the US:

When Japan defeated a nation, they enslaved, raped, and murdered not just the enemy military, but the civilian population as well, including women, children, and the elderly, in the order of millions. This was AFTER the fighting had stopped.

When the US was fighting Japan, they only destroyed the Japanese military and the infrastructure supporting Japan's military - of course Japan's civilians were completely tied up in the military. After the war was over, rather than executing the defeated Japanese by the millions, the US immediately rebuilt Japan to be more prosperous and freer than it had ever been before.

Just some observations after hearing liberals whining about how America was evil to use nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945.

Answer 1

Probably because they know so little history that they don't know what happened in the preceding years to cause the war which the A-bombs ended.

All decent people respect human life, and value innocent life, but unfortunately there are a few vicious people in every era whose cruelty requires decent people to defend themselves and others by doing things they'd really rather not do.

It's easy for someone living in the comfort of the modern world to criticize a previous generation's actions.

Answer 2

I do not know why anyone would question the decision to drop the bombs. It was not a moral decision but a military one.

The Japanese had proven as a people, both military and civilians, that they would resist to the last man because they still thought that they could win. Surrender was an idea so foreign and alien to them that to mention it was treason. With the option of taking an estimated million casualties on both sides in just the initial invasion a new way had to be found to end the war. Enter the atomic bomb, a weapon so awesome that one bomb could devastate a city. This was a weapon that could shock the Japanese so much that they would surrender just to stop the destruction caused by one bomb when they did not know how many we had.

People also seem to think that the atomic bomb was the worst bombing of the war. The Air Force had already caused more casualties from firebombing Tokyo than what the atomic bomb inflicted. Germany had been quite literally ground into a powder by the bombing raids over their skies. In an age of industrialized war, industry becomes a legitimate target and needs to be destroyed to slow and stop the war. Do civilians die? Yes, but it helps the war effort, and war is Hell.

Also the idea that the weapon was only a test to impress the Soviets is ludicrous, we wanted to end the war the fastest way that we knew how and this was it. The second bomb did not come after the surrender but forced the hand of the Emperor to stop the destruction.

Answer 3

You are not actually arguing whether the bombings were moral or not. You are arguing that their use was necessary in order to end the war. Historians have always debated whether the atomic bombs were necessary in order to end the war. It could be argued that Japan had already been reduced in its capacity to fight and that it was only a matter of time before surrendering. It is unlikely that "millions of lives" were saved by the use of these particular bombs, if Japan was on the brink of surrendering.

The US may have helped to rebuild Japan after the war, but it was not simply an altruistic act. Indeed, the US would benefit from trade with a strong Japan and, at the same time shore up the East against the possible spread of the Soviet Union and Communism.

Yes, what the Japanese military did before and during the war from POW torture to using Chinese women as sex slaves is deplorable. However, the Japanese military was not the only one to be involved in committing wartime atrocities. What the US military did not do during WWII, it more than made up for lost time during the Vietnam War -- with many civilians being killed or maimed.

The bottom line is, you cannot have a "clean" war. No country involved is going to avoid committing immoral acts.

Answer 4

I read a book about a woman who was in Hiroshima when the bombing occurred. She was a civilian woman with a baby. She describes the feeling of her skin melting off her in detail. She can't find her house or even her street after the bombing because every landmark has gone. She is a nobody with no influence over her government and I have to conclude that she was a completely innocent person

I don't really want to comment on who is the most justified in killing the most people. I just wonder why any government chooses to kill women and children ...the most powerless people in a nation at war

I hadn't really thought about the morality of it before. I wonder if the same affect of submission could have been achieved without dropping the bombs on cities. I suspect the awesome devastation would have been just as evident had they been dropped on forest or field. I also wonder what would have happened if they had dropped 1 bomb and said we've got plenty more where that came from.

I don't think it's wise to make choices or adjust your own morality against someone else's ...it makes you powerless because everything you do is just in response to their actions and you make choices that are against what you thought were your beliefs

Answer 5

Hi,

I have to disagree slightly with your impression of the atomic bombings of Japan in the second world war...

The action wasn't heroic, though it was possibly needed. However the second bomb (detonated at altitude) was totally unnecessary, as the Japanese had capitulated already. It was used because the military leaders wanted to observe the effects of an airborne bomb as opposed to a land-detonated bomb. (no other reason, just curiosity)

However, one thing DOES worry me...we keep hearing that no-one will use all the atomic and hydrogen bombs that several nations have (including the USA, Britain, France, India, China and so on) because the opposition has the bombs as well. THAT statement is, quite obviously, rubbish. The Americans used them because they had them (and very effective they were) Do you seriously think that any of the countries that 'religiously' hate the UK, USA and so on would hesitate exploding such monstrous devices if they had them...that's why many people criticise their (thankfully) only use so far.

And think, too, about this...America (and us) were not innocents in war time...think of all the South Vietnamese villages that were destroyed by America because 'the children MAY grow up to be viet cong' (that was the excuse given for Mai Lai, for example)

These people were supposed to be the people America was 'saving' from communism. Think of how many troops are killed by 'friendly fire' (the brief war in Kuwait saw more deaths from 'friendly fire' than were occasioned by the enemy)

So self justify the use of the bombs if you desire, but don't fool yourself into thinking 'they're all bad'...'we're all innocent' We are not, and they weren't all bad either.

Cheers,

BobSpain

Answer 6

What people forget, or never really understood, is that conventional bombing during world war 2 was not conducted with precision guided weapons. It was done with carpet bombing, inflicting massive collateral damage. So in many ways the A-bomb attacks were no different than normal bombing attacks. More "innocent civilians" died in the fire bomb raids in Tokyo than in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But the obvious power of the A-bomb helped the Japanese realize it was time to stop fighting.

Answer 7

I have yet to hear about a nuclear bomb that doesn't kill civilians and only kills military targets and military infrastructure.

Sure the Japanese were ruthless, but that doesn't justify whiping out two major cities. Using nukes deffinately was effective and it was probably the right thing to do because it put fear in the Soviets. But there was nothing heroic about nuking hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

The main reason the USA rebuilt Japan was so they could have a military presence in Eastern Asia. Also, the lessons learned from post-WW1 Germany was a major factor in the rebuilding of post-WW2 Japan and Germany.

Answer 8

I think you are wrong about the "heroic" part. Recent articles have stated that the Japanese were going to sue for peace. The US knew they were about to do that when there was a decision made to go ahead and drop the bombs (obviously the US had invested millions of dollars developing them so they HAD to test them) and what abetter cover story than the Japanese fanatics who would rather die than surrender?

So the US made WWII into the first Atomic War when it could have been finished by conventional methods. The US chose to go that step beyond and took the war to a new level. That doesn't make it right, actually it makes it wrong.

It was unnecessary and cruel to Test our might against them when their will and resources to fight had been drained.

You don't have to be a liberal to believe it was wrong, only human.



g-day!

Answer 9

So japan ought to provide up, through fact Germany had surrendered months earlier, yet Japan replaced into protecting out and wasn't budging.. however the outcomes have been unhappy. hundreds of people who lived in hiroshima and nagasaki died interior of minutes of the bombs being dropped. 2 cities have been thoroughly in ruins, and the U. S. had to help pay for it through Marshall Plan. there replaced into additionally undesirable radiation in those factors for years after the bombings.

Answer 10

Just because the Japanese government did bad things doesn't mean all those people deseved that fate. It was an attack on civilians, which is always considered dishonorable warfare. It ended the war, but it was in a sense just like 9/11. Those people hadn't done anything to us, many were children. The Americans aren't ALWAYS honorable in their sonduct when invading countries anyway, they can rape and plunder also, even though they aren't allowed to. We're people with faults just like they are, and their children are innocent just like ours and didn't deserve to be massascred.