What do u think about the a-bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in ww2?

Question

Just want opinions, say as strongly as u lyk, i dont care.

O, btw, i just want opinions, not a buncha history info, or i'll spout some too, and i kinda write a WHOLE LOTTA PAGES when asked about sumthin. Nu-uh. i dont think anyone wants dat.lol.
Say what u lyk. i'm not gonna report any, that is, unless u say HORRIBLE, STOOPID things about any side or person.

Say whatever u want. i dont care. i wont report anything unless it's incredibly stupid.

>_<;;; no facts, just opinions, unless u want me 2 b a textbook lyk you!!!

Answer 1

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.

The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes under the Geneva Convention (at that time), genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane.

What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 2

The fact of the matter was that the world was exhausted of war and that it was blatantly obvious that the Japanese were not going to surrender unconditionally to anything other than a complete and total invasion. It's ironic to only point out the atomic bomb usage and its' massive loss of life when just 2 months prior to the bombs being dropped there was a massive fire bombing mission done over Tokyo that resulted (conservatively) in 250,000 Japanese lives being lost. Anyways, the ferocity of the Iwo Jima and Okinawa campaigns made up Trumans mind for him. The Americans would have invaded in Sept. of 45 and would have inflicted far more casualties on the Japanese than the two bombs did on top of inflicting casualties estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands for the Americans(some estimates put as high as over a million...x 6 for the Japanese)This would have also extended the war for at least another year, possibly longer.

As far as the Pearl Harbor comments, The US did know about it, but it was about 15 minutes before the attack. Pearl Harbor Happened on a Sunday where a majority of the military personnel were either off or not at their stations. Had they gotten the warning it would not have mattered.15 minutes is the same then that it is now...not much time...on top of them not having all the high tech communication devices we have today. Besides, imagine how the war would have turned out if America did not enter. Britain was holding on by sheer will, but she would have folded eventually, on top of the fact that it would have freed up A LOT more Germans to fight the Russians, which could have changed the war on that front drastically. Japan took a gamble to knock us out of the war quickly (which they almost did) but fate was on our side at Midway. The chinese were too worried about fighting each other to threaten Japans dominace in Asia. It would have been a much different world and probably a much worse off world at that.

There are so many what if's in history that if we sat around and dwelled on them all the time we'd never get anywhere. This stuff happened, horrible or not, so the least we can do is learn from it and move on.

Answer 3

I think it was a no brainer decision for Truman to make. It saved millions of lives over a land invasion.

Answer 4

I think it is absoutely wrong to suggest the bombs should not have been employed. They built the biggest bombs they could and they used them. They were already at war. Imagine if the bombs were not used and another 10,000 - forget that - another 1 American/Allied life was lost. How do you rationalise to the parents of that soldier that you as the commander in chief had a bomb that could have ended the war but you didnt use it because you were afraid it might kill too many of the enemy? for goodness sake! It is documented that the Japanese were training civilians to fight on the Japanese mainland. The casualities on both sides as a result of an allied invasion would have been horrendous. I firmly believe that the dropping of the bombs ended the war sooner than had they not been used, and I believe that their use saved the lives of countless allied soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians. No one ever carries on about fire-bombing Tokyo and other cities, even though THAT caused just as many, if not more loss of life. Dont object to nuclear weapons as if they are some magical terrible thing -they are just big bombs. If you are going to object to nuclear bombs, then object to ALL bombs, not just the nuclear ones.
The secondary objective was to demonstrate to the Russians that the Americans had the bomb to stop their drive on Europe. The Allies were already planning a war with the communists before the end of WW2.
War is terrible, but once started I demand that my government do EVERYTHING in its power to end it to prevent the loss of any more of my countrymen. If the government allowed 1 more allied soldier to die to save the lives of some enemy soldiers I'd be outraged.

Answer 5

I can't believe that people think "it saved lives". It didn't. 140,000 in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki.You consider trading the lives of 220,000 innocent civilians in two Japanese cities for the lives of the soldiers that would have died had the bombs not been dropped a fair exchange? That kind of thinking is really sick. If the people that actually answered this question really knew anything about history, especially the facts about the US government knowing well in advance that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked, your thoughts on the war, and the involvement of the USA would be totally different. If you dig for an hour on the web for the history other than what is in US history books and accepted as "the truth" you will vomit over what the facts really are and how the American government was culpable in the attack on Pearl Harbor. People should have the same reaction about the bombs on Japan as they have about Iraq. Americans should be ashamed about using the bomb twice. Geez people, get informed and learn some real history before you spout off about how the US was justified in blowing up Japan because of Pearl Harbor. You are SO ignorant and have bought the 'company' line.

Answer 6

Why is this question still asked? This is something that happened 62 years ago and can't be changed. Lives were lost, lives were saved (not just Japanese & Americans, but also Canadian, Australian, British, Chinese, etc....especially those in POW camps that wouldn't have survived much longer), and it showed what would happen if a bomb was dropped. Since then there has been tests & threats but it hasn't happened again, so it was a learning experience.

Answer 7

It was indiscriminate killing of women and children. All bombings are indiscriminate killings! They are a clear violation of the GC! The president traded civilian lives for military lives!

Answer 8

The atomic bombings of the two cities in WW2 changed the face of the planet. We used it because in 1945, there were still many Japanese soldiers in Asia. Japan still controlled Asia. I believe about 6 million soldiers were ready to attack at Emperor Hiro-Hito's command. Before the droppings of the atomic bombs, the U.S. planned to invade Japan. If we did, more than a million Americans would be dead and several million wounded. However, we made a choice to use the atomic bomb to stop the risk of injuring and killing Americans. It would just cost more money to fund the bombs.

So in simple terms, we dropped the atomic bomb to save the soldiers' lives and to end the war immediately.

Answer 9

People dying is always a bad thing, under any circumstance.

However, it worked and brought the Japanese to their knees in a matter of days.

What's great, is today, we are great allies with Japan.

Answer 10

I think it was a necessary thing that had to be done, when you consider the loss of lives fighting the Japanese. The bombing of both cities and the declaration of war on Japan by Russia ended the U.S. war and saved countless American and Japanese lives.

At some points during the war in the Pacific, the U.S. lost as many as 60,000 soldiers in ONE DAY OF FIGHTING. Nobody can sustain those losses forever.