Hiroshima ?

Question

Ok so Hiroshima ended the war but was it justified ?

Oh by the way this is my opinion - I believe that at the time it may of seemed like the logical anser because most the enemie fighters would of prefered to die than surrender and in the long term saved thousands of american lives but i personnaly think too many civilians were killed to a point were it was extremely wrong.
Im not saying it was the correct thing to do but like it or not it worked. Thanks for ansering

Answer 1

yes..in my opinion.

i know it killed a lot of people but the alternative was another year fighting a war that would have ended up killing anything up to ten times the lamount of lives .the us would have to have fought every inch of land they took and taking many lives to do it..hiroshima was a horrible thing but was the lesser of 2 evils.

Answer 2

Is too easy to make judgements with the benefit of hindsight and dangerous to apply the standards of today to the events of the past. I think at the time the US saw the A bomb as an opportunity to bring the war to an end quickly and without incurring further US casualties. Militarily they were right, although it took the 2nd, Nagasaki bomb to drive through the surrender. Morally, I have always struggled to understand the problem with using a bomb that is essentially 'bigger' than conventional bombs. Both types of bomb kill people and destroy buildings etc; we are arguing over scale. The war that was being fought was as near to a total war as we have seen so far and in that concept there are no civilians. Those not in the armed forces of their country have always been at risk since wars began and lands were invaded. Th advent of the aeroplane simply has put civilians in the front line, where casualties are inevitable.

Answer 3

Yes it was right to do that at that time. We must look at it not with the eyes of today but what was known in 1945.


If you say it was wrong.
Ok then the US would have Fire Bombed the same towns.

The fire raids on Japan started in 1945. The fire raids were ordered by General Curtis LeMay, who some see as the ‘Bomber Harris’ of the Pacific War, in response to the difficulty B-29 crews had in completing pinpoint strategic bombing over Japanese cities. LeMay, therefore, decided that blanket bombing raids on cities to undermine the morale of civilians were an appropriate response.


The Tokyo firebombing has long been overshadowed by the U.S. atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which preceded the Japanese surrender that ended World War II the following August. But the burning of the capital, which resulted in more immediate deaths than either of the nuclear bombings, stands as a horrifying landmark in the history of warfare on noncombatants.


The official death toll was some 83,000, but historians generally agree that victims unaccounted for bring the figure to around 100,000 — overwhelmingly civilians. It is widely considered to be the most devastating air raid in history.

Answer 4

It would be wrong to nuke Iraq, since we proactively invaded their nation to overthrow an Islamic radical regime. Japan, however, attacked us unprovoked. We weren't the military superpower we are now on Dec. 7, 1941. Today, raiding Pearl Harbor would be a blow to the U.S., but not a devastating blow. We would come from all corners of the earth with hellfire from all branches of service to retaliate against something like that. Back in 1941, we were lucky not to have our Navy completely destroyed. It may not seem so obvious, but if people were betting on the outcome of the war in 1941, America v. Japan, Japan would probably have been the one to come out on top in the betting pools. They hadn't lost a major battle in a couple of thousand years. That war was devastating as it was, but it would have been a lot worse. By the time Hiroshima was bombed, the Japanese STILL did not surrender. (If they had been a democratic-republican form of government, they would not have gone to war w/ the US, and they darn sure would have surrendered either after Iwo Jima or after Hiroshima if they did war with us). As it was, we bombed Nagasaki too, because "they" (the Emperor) did not surrender.

In terms of today's world, we would probably pursue a decapitation strike against 'Hito, take out Japan's communications, and blockade their nation. We have that kind of strength now. Back then, they were the big dog when they picked the fight with us.

It's a shame when civilians are killed, and it's a shame when anyone is killed in war. The best solution to preventing nuclear war, and most war, is to have everyone in charge of their government, not the other way around. Emperors, dictators, kings, and tyrants war over emotional and egotistical reasons. People, in general, are less likely to succumb to that type of emotion.

For example, by and large, we chose to invade Iraq as a nation. Through our elections and as indicated by numerous polls, this country was on board with a pre-emptive strike. In a post 9/11 world, it's not an irrational thought. Polls even today show that the majority of Americans favor a strike (or at least the threat of a military strike) on Iran's nuclear facilities and military headquarters. At the same time, national polls show Americans wanting an Iraq withdrawal. Some of that opinion shift was evident in the 2006 mid-term elections. If the American trend is towards withdrawal (neglecting other issues, both domestic and overseas), then the 2008 general election may see a President Hillary Clinton with a Democratic-controlled House and Senate...which would presumably completely end our involvement in Iraq almost immediately (if you listen to the rhetoric, at least).

The point is, in a roundabout way, that people sway opinion in democratically elected governments (I use that term democratically very loosely...a republican form of government like we have here in the U.S. is actually a better term). People don't like to nuke other people, or see continued deaths without some extreme need. People will actually get turned off to a worthwhile battle before they should, while a dictator or emperor will be extreme in the opposite way, by continuing to fight a losing battle, causing even more devastation.

Nuclear war is a terrible possibility, and hopefully it never happens again. But when you judge the actions of Truman and our nation during that time, just try to do it in the proper frame of reference.

Answer 5

Think Sane: You should live up to the first part of your screen name. Japan was not at war with Britain in 12/41 and was not at war with the USSR until 8/45. Why would the US supplying weapons to them mean war with Japan? The alliance with Germany was purely defensive, which was Japan's justification for not declaring war on the USSR. In your eyes, was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor justified because the weapons the US was supplying would make it tougher for Japan to seize Russian and British possessions later?

Debating the "morality" of the atomic bombs is a pointless exercise. WW2 was the most horrible of wars. Had the atomic bombs never existed, the war would have continued. Read about the coup that was attempted before the Japanese Emperor's radio address could be broadcast. People talk of the "unsupportable" numbers of people who would have died in an invasion of Japan. Where is the proof that the militants in the Japanese government would have surrendered?

As I said, this is a pointless question because there are those who are convinced of the continued evil and guilt of the US. I am waiting for them to start decrying the unjustified rebellion of 1776.

Answer 6

Depends on how you look at it. If the war had carried on, many more people would have died. Just different people.

WWII was never going to end without a lot of bloodshed. The Japanese were like maniacs, committing terrible atrocities in their POW camps, suicide missions etc. It was seemingly the only way to make them stop. Like a short sharp shock it forced them to capitulate. I don't think anyone can justify the loss of life or say all those individual deaths were "justified" but maybe that the raid was sadly "necessary".

Answer 7

Most points have been covered ie if the bomb hadnt been dropped then the US would have had to fight on Japanese soil and many more millions would have died.One person said that the US didnt give warning of the power of this weapon or the Japanese would have capitulated before it was dropped yet the Japanese carried on fighting until the SECOND bomb was dropped and it was only then that the Emperor overruled his war cabinet and capitulated.The dropping of this weapon was regretable as it started a new cold war where we now have enough weapons to destroy the whole planet and more.The sad part of the dropping of this bomb is that NO ONE learned a lesson and said this is too much and banned it all together we blindly went on producing more and more

Answer 8

you have to remember that all war is hell and no good.but if the Japanese, had the bomb or the Germans, they would of used it against us.in any war civilians die.but they were warned before it was dropped to surrender.but they refused to do so.and as a result a second bomb was dropped as well.you are right it was a terrible thing to do.but no one had any idea that this bomb was as powerful as it was.it;s sad that so many died as a result of some stupid Japanese generals who thought that after the first bomb was dropped they still had a chance to win the war.so a lot of the blame has to go on the Japanese government for so many of their people dying.was it justified to use, yes it ended a terrible war.was pearl harbor justified.in the first place the American government was talking about peace with the japanese governemnt.and at the same time they were planing a secret attack against our pacific fleet.what about the 3,200 lives taken that day back in dec 1941.most of the military personal were sleeping when the attack on pearl harbor took place.so you ask was it justified.if you served back then you;d of said yes as well.what ever it takes to end death and destruction you must use it.we did what we thought was the right thing to do at the time.and it saved millions of lives.god forbid we ever have to do it again.

Answer 9

Anybody know what the Japs did when they marched through China? They were invincible at the time and made Atilla the Hun look like a Sunday school teacher, raping, pillaging, looting, and marching around with babies on their bayonets. Or anyone hear of the Bataan Death March, and what their soldiers did to thousands of Filipinos and innocent missionaries? Don't even get me started about the torture and starvation American POW's endured. And we worry about "waterboarding". Give me a break!
Was it the right decision? Did they deserve it? Did it save not only American lives but Japanese lives as well?
They started it, we finished it.

Bet your A** it was justified.

Edit:
Chris P- They were warned...........twice. They chose to ignore the deadlines given and did not reply.

Answer 10

I've weighed this for years, and as a Truman scholar, I've had the chance to read about this, and have studied the opinions of many who were involved in the decision.

The opinion you express above is in fact the opinion that has pretty much been force fed to the public for years. The theory is the Japanese would have gone down fighting really hard, and the invasion would have been costly...

That made sense to me until I began to really learn what was going on in Japan right at that moment in history.

The real truth seems to be that Japan had already lost, and they knew it all too well. In fact, they were suing for peace to the Vatican on the day the bombs were dropped. In effect, that were in the process of surrendering. There was no way they could have staged a resistance to the invasion, had such an invasion even been necessary. They were broke, and their army was decimated. You couldn't buy a pair of shoes in Tokyo at that point. The populace was starving and the army was demoralized.

I have come to believe that the decision to use the bomb was a power play, aimed at frightening Russia and China, because the US knew that they would be our main competitors for the next period of history.

So no. My opinion has settled at this: it was militarily uncalled for, morally indefensible and really just a political maneuver.

I have seen that many others have come to this conclusion
looking back and having a better knowledge of the actual facts of the time.

Answer 11

Yes both militarily and morally. sadly even then it saved more lives than it would have costs on both sides had an invasion taken place. Sadly in this modern age non-combatants do not count for anything if they are in the way of a military target. cities supply either materials or labour for war and again sadly they are now targets. No one ever escapes in a war at their front door. I glad I do not have to makae these horrible decisions