Were American atomic drop on Nagasaki and Hiroshima justifiable?

Question

Esp. with respect to the tremendous amount of destructive energy released. No doubt the Imperial Japanese army atrocities were beyond human comprehension but is this anything comparable to atomic bombs?

Answer 1

On the one hand, it did stop the pacific theatre dead in it's tracks. However, I don't believe that weapons of mass destruction are ever justifiable, especially when they kill innocent civilians, such as children. My answer is a whopping NO.

Answer 2

Sort of.

In 1945, the Allied forces were making great strides in the Pacific. Okinawa fell in June, and the next step for the Allies was to bring the war to the enemy's living room by invading the Japanese home islands.

The problem was that this move was going to be horrendously expensive in terms of human lives. Military advisors to the President projected that the invasion would cost up to a million American casualties, and many times that among the Japanese civilian population. Meanwhile, the Japanese empire was steadfastly refusing to surrender, despite that fact that the war, for them, was essentially a lost cause.

Within this context, dropping the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki can easily be seen as an act of mercy. Remember that the Japanese started the war. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was just one relatively minor event in an appalling series of unprovoked Japanese invasions and humanitarian atrocities that cost literally tens of millions of innocent lives across the Pacific Rim over a period of decades.

Given this history, there was simply no question of bottling up the Japanese and leaving them to their own devices: the empire had to be dismantled. Though various estimates assert that the two atomic bombs cost as many as 200,000 Japanese civilians their lives, in the end this was a relatively small price to pay for putting an end to a war that could easily have dragged on for another year or two and claimed another 10 million lives among the civilian population alone.

Answer 3

The most important justification for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan is that the U.S. were trying to occupy Japan before the Soviets do. (Whether or not it's a good justification is up to you.)

During the Yalta Conference, the U.S. has obtained Stalin's consent to declare war on Japan once Germany was defeated. By July 1945, the USSR has amassed substantial forces transferred from the European theater on its borders with Manchuria. The U.S. leadership suspected that Soviet attack on Japanese forces will be swift and will eventually end in occupation of Japan by the USSR. The former did happen (between August 8 and August 18, the Soviet forces destroyed Japanese army in Manchuria and occupied Manchuria and half of Korea); the latter didn't, because on August 15, Japan surrendered to the U.S., while formally remaining at war with China and USSR. American occupation began on August 28, while the Japanese forces in China surrendered to the Chinese on September 9. USSR and Japan has never signed a formal armistice...

Answer 4

As I understand it the japanese were trying to find a way to surrender and still 'save face' for the Emperer. The Americans really wanted to try their new toys though. Even MacArthur was against it. An invasion of Japan was probably not going to be necessary but the Soviets were watching closely and Truman knew they would soon be a threat so why not put the fear of god in them too. It's all highly debatable, just like the Japanese Internment on balance I don't think it was necessary.

Answer 5

There was more loss of life in the Tokyo firebombings than was lost combined in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Hundreds of sorties were made and thousands of firebombs were dropped on all major Japanese cities, with massive loss of Japanese life and deaths of U.S. pilots, and still the Japanese would NOT SURRENDER.

The next step was the invasion of the Japanese home islands - Operation Downfall. The number of deaths were estimated to be in the several MILLIONS!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

The idea of 'one bomb, one city' was futuristic. One sortie, one bomb, no American deaths was a fantastic military idea! The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented the allied invasion of Japan and saved millions of American lives.

Josef Stalin, after he was through with Berlin, had promised to invade Japan with over a million Mongolian Soviet troops. Since the Japanese still did not surrender after the two atomic bombs were dropped, some historians suggest that Stalin's threatened invasion of Japan was the real reason Japan capitulated, and not the atomic bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_atrocities

SO YES the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very justifiable.

Answer 6

To stop an invasion of Japan which would have caused 1 MILLION Allied casualties. Yes Totally Justified in my Opinion. Shame that the things were ever invented though.

Answer 7

No it was not justified. America wanted to end war quickly and they were having hard time winning. N. weapon was their only solution.
If a developed country like America can throw nukes, then what would prevent third world countries from using their nukes.

Answer 8

The only justification I can think of is that it brought WWII to a swift conclusion.

Answer 9

Not sure. However, Hirosima can be a lead to think about nuclear weapons and out future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MraBQBU6jtA