Do you think the United States was justified in using the bomb against the Japanese?

Answer 1

I don't think the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor.. but two wrongs don't make a right.. I'm glad we're friends with Japan now..

Answer 2

You are asking a question about the morals of killing in a war that was started by Japan in the 1930's. The Japanese army murdered several Million Chinese and Korean CIVILIANS BEFORE they attacked Pearl Harbor.

With that said, The best information I have read to date is that the calculations made before the a-bombs were dropped is that the only way that the war would end is if Japan was invaded and conquered or forced by an extreme means to surrender. The Allied losses should an invasion to the Japanese mainland be made was to be over 1 million. But the real shocker was that the Japanese losses would be well over 2 million soldiers and 4 million civilians. Compared to the loss of 200,000 people, Military and civilian, the decision was made to drop the first bomb. The second bomb was dropped after the Japanese government failed to respond. After the 2nd bomb was dropped the US had no more options left had the Japanese not surrendered. We had No more a-bombs to deliver and it would take months to build more. Had they not surrendered they would have faced the invasion and lost MORE people, 4 to 5 million at least.

Now do YOU think it was a wise decision to drop two Atomic weapons on Japan? Would your father or grandfather have been a casualty in the Japanese invasion had it been necessary to proceed with? In which the question would be, would you be here to question the use of something that possibly saved your existence?

Answer 3

i not saying it was right or wrong for them to use it. i think the logic in using the bomb was in order to save the Japanese. the u.s basically need something to knock japan out from the start. the u.s wasn't ready to start a long dragged out war with japan that would have cause a lot of causality on both sides. from what history have taught is that japan will fight with everything they have, even with there lives. you see a example of this during the pearl harbor incidents with the kamikaze. once the Japanese pilots ran out of bombs and bullets some decided to ram there planes into the carriers at full speed knowing full well they were going to do. the u.s. was trying to demonstrate the power they have and that no matter what the Japaneses had that they would never win. It was also a psychological trick, once they think there is no more hope then the moral will go down. So yes, I think the U.S. was justfied in the using the bomb.

Answer 4

Murder is never justified. However, by many projections, the number of people killed as the result of the two atomic bombs were lower than the number of people that would've died had the Allies attempted to invade. Look at the high price the Allies (particularly US) paid for Tarawa, for Saipan, for Iwo Jima, for Okinawa, etc. And these projections were not just counting the potential American deaths; they were looking at potential Japanese deaths also, and both military and civilian.

I'm not saying Truman was absolutely right in making that decision, especially given the hindsight we have today, but I want to express that he was given enough information to at least justly consider the usage of the atomic weapons.

Answer 5

did the japanese have justification for bombing pearl harbor? why don't you ask if we were justified in firebombing Dresden, or Hamburg, or Berlin, So many people were missing in Dresden nobody Knows the amount killed.Which weapon doesn't matter, dead is dead.Would it make you feel better if it was a hundred thousand people killed by a blunt stick through the eye? Just a thought.Colonel Paul Tibbets (later general) died this year,He would be the one to ask,

Answer 6

The justification was that just as many people would die fighting in Japan and perhaps many more if warfare went on with them for an extended period. Having lost SO much on the battlefields of Europe - the thought of another years-long ground war was simply a sacrifice they could not bear.

They did what they had to to bring the war to an abrupt end. Yes it was at the cost of many Japanese lives, but they thought that warfare by conventional means would have cost just as many lives in the end anyway.

Answer 7

Yes because 1.) it saved a lot of lives of U.S. servicemen and 2.) a total mainland invasion of Japan would've cost a lot more lives.

Don't think that the decision to drop the bomb was an easy one for President Truman. I doubt he exhibited great joy in making the decision to drop the bombs.

Answer 8

Yes, it was the best way to end the war without sacrificing another million American lives and even more millions of Japanese in the mainland. As horrible as it was, all this is just Monday morning quarteback. What we should have done was drop a couple in China when we were fighting in North Korea.

Answer 9

I think so, because we needed to prove to Japan that they weren't stronger than us. Remember Operation Descision? Well, i think the A-Bomb was sort of a response to that and if we hadn't gone after Naqasaqui(I know spelled wrong I'm sure) and Hiroshima they would have come back after us, seen us as weak.

Answer 10

Yes, there are so many reasons.

To make it simple:

1. To protect the lives of American soldiers
2. To prevent the spread of Communism
3. To save more Japanese lives (civilian and military)