Was dropping the bombs on Japan to end WWII justified?

Answer 1

hdean45... You, my friend, are an idiot. The difference it makes today, is that we have multiple neuclear countires, and I don't hesitate to think that the issue in Iran or in North Korea could eventually escallate to atomic proportions.

Was it justified? Was the suprise attack on Pearl Harbor justified? Was the Battan Death March Justified? Is any act of War really justified? In this case, I think that it can be argued both ways, but having lived in Japan for a couple of years, I can tell you that as a people, they will not quit anything that they feel is what their honor deserves. And it is against the Bushido code for a warrior to surrender, and the civilians didn't see them selves as any less of the nation of Japan. They were warriors as well. It took a horrific act to end the war, possibly justifying the means neccessary.

Answer 2

No. Japan got all its natural resources from other countries by ship. The US Navy had a complete blockade of the Japanese Islands, thus resources were pitiful toward the end of the War in the Pacific. The citizens of Japan were starving---living on less than 700 calories a day.

We had complete control of the skies over Japan several months before the A bombs. Curtis La May was bombing them relentlessly with impunity. Japan had no fighter coverage. . No oil, no fuel.

Other here say hundreds of thousands of lives were saved on both sides. The assessments at the time of the A bomb by the military never reached that amount. These estimates came from an article in "Look" or"Life" Magazine in the summer of 1946. Fully a year after the bombs were dropped. Why? Perhaps to justify the use and the decisions made by those in authority at the time?

Answer 3

Yes.

I assume you are asking about the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These two bombs did about 3 percent of the total damage done by bombing in Japan. Most of the damage was done by incendiary bombing directed at Japanese cities with industries.

Although many military leaders deplored the use of the atomic bombs (including Air Force General Hoyt Vandenberg, the second chief of staff and Dwight Eisenhower, who became president) historians generally agree that Japan was not prepared to surrender as of the time the decision was made to use the bomb.

In fact Japan was prepared to offer much the same resistance as was encountered in Okinawa and Saipan, but on a much larger scale.

Most analysts agree that the death toll among both the invaders and the defending Japanese, who would have included many civilians, would have been much higher, and the rebuilding of Japan would have been much more difficult had the bombs not been used. One of these analysts was the great Japanese fighter ace, Saburo Sakai, who told the Americans after the war that the Japanese would have resisted almost to the last drop of blood.

Even after the bombs were dropped, there were military factions in Japan who attempted by force to prevent the surrender.

I have spent time in Japan and respect and love the Japanese people. I deplore the loss of life on both sides in the Pacific War, but these actions were necessary to bring it to an end.

Answer 4

It stopped the war. Had it not then many, many times that number of people would have died on both sides.

Whilst Japan waves the bombs and implies it was a victim you have to remember the horrific attacks on civilians by the Japanese, all the prisoners who were horrifically treated and most hounded to death. Of the hospitals where the staff and patients were all taken out and shot. Women prisoners used as sex slaves. All that would have continued and probably far worse!!!!

Perhaps those that say it was wrong would have the courage to say how many hundreds of thousands, or millions of people should die before the bomb was used. Perhaps they think it should not have been used no matter how many would die in the continuing war!!!!!!

Answer 5

I often wonder if peace or surrender could have been acheived differently, but we will never know. I am not sure if the ramifications of dropping those two bombs was fully understood at the time, what we did to those civillians is heartbreaking. I feel terrible for those who died in the bombing, but I feel even worse for those who "survived" it.

Never have the horrors of what war can bring, been shown more plainly than on the bodies of those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The dead and the living.

If you don't know what i am talking about, i suggest you watch a documentary on the topic called, "White Light, Black Rain"; it can be very hard to watch.

Answer 6

I grew up in a very liberal place that started part of the anti nuclear weapon movement, and I was constantly exposed to all the arguements over the evils of dropping the bombs. Despite that I think it was the correct decision. (Although in retrospect, I think making the bombs themselves was not worth the value they created from being dropped Japan)

Why would I hold this viewpoint despite my social conditioning? My dad went to college in one of Japan's top universities, and his college thesis was based around the events which transpired during world war 2, and what his professors told him (many of whom had been directly involved in the political events of the war), made it clear the bomb had to be dropped.

Very basically, Japanese society was based around "face" or honor, and by their culture this was more important than just about anything else. Some random secret society called the Kushu samurai (who were pissed off about samurai losing their place in Japanesse society after the West came to japan), decided to try and take over the government, and basically succeeded by pulling some tricks to manipulate the emperor (and by default) nation's "face".

Long story short, this group of people (for reference Tojo was their leader) was responsible for Japan entering ww2, since the believed they needed to take over their area (not the world though), and thus conducted the war even though the emperor, and large part of the society were opposed to the war. Since the Kushu samurai controlled the government in this way and didn't want to lose face, surrender was basically impossible for Japan.

Due to Japan's obsession with face, it also meant that should an invasion occur, the japanese would resist down to house wives coming at soldiers with frying pans. Traditionally in order to overcome these issues of "country honor," it would be necessary for the emperor to surrender and awknowledge the countries defeat, but unfortunately, the Kushu samurai had him locked up in the palace.

The ironic thing about the bombings, was that the emporer desperately wanted the end the war, and saw that it would destroy his country, but was completely unable to do anything. Through various covert channels, he was able to remain in contact with Truman, who told him about the A-bomb, what it would do, and what the emp's opinion was. The emperor decided that dropping nuclear weapons was the only way to overcome the grip on Japanese society and end the war (and some bs happened after the first one, so two had to be dropped instead for the plan to succeed).

So in in effect, the much decried nuclear "slaughter" of japan was actually authorized by their leader to help the country. It wasn't a question of "white people making grand assumptions to justify the annhilation of a city and the slaughter of all it's inhabitants, but rather something their leader knew had to be done."

The most ironic thing about the atomic bombings, is that more people died in the first allied air raid in japan (or the firebombing of Dresden...although the death count is not completely known), than Hiroshima, yet there has never been a peep made about either of these incidents.

Differently put, the Nuclear attacks against both the cities were crimes against humanity, and left an even worse legacy. There are a lot of people who are rightly upset about the occurances. However, I do not believe it is correct to say that the bombings were the wrong decision. Doing so equates to a total ignorance of an extremely complex situation lost to history. Fact remains, Japan loves the united states, most of their top academics support the bombings, and they were ordered by Japans top official for the sake of the country. Abhorrent yes, but from a utilitarian point of view, 100% correct.
Hope this helps you think about things differenty.

I'm a pathetic person however, and despite knowing it was the right to do, I don't think I could have ever given permission to drop that bomb.

Answer 7

Yes. The use of the bomb saved hundreds of thousands of lives of Aliied military personnel, hundreds of thousands of lives of Japanese military personnel, and hundreds of thousands of lives of Japanese civilians.

There were more civilian casualites EVERY NIGHT in the firebombing than during the nuclear attack.

As long as there was one stone on top of another, and one baby with a toy plastic hammer left alive, the Japan of 1945 would NEVER have surrendered.

A civilian killed by a conventional bomb is just as dead as a civillian killed by a nuclear bomb.

Mine is not a nice opinion, or a popular one, but I believe it to be the truth.

Finally, please do not imagine that the Nazis, or the Japanese, would have hestitated to have used such a bomb if they had had it. They were a relentless, ruthless, formidable enemy,

Answer 8

It saved an estimated 5 million US and Allied casualties which would have occured if the Islands of Japan were to be invaded.

Research just how many Asian people and Allied soldiers died because of the Japanese Occupation of the Far East.Even today many Japanese refuse to recognise they (Japan) did any wrong.

Answer 9

In a word yes, the Japanese were not going to surrender and it would have taken an invasion to end the war. I for 1 have no problem with it, my Father was slated to be in the first wave going ashore.

Answer 10

Yes it was it saved many soldiers and POW's lives some who were not even in the military but were held in inhumane prison camps.
Do think if they got the bomb before us they wouldn't have dropped it on us of course they would have.