What justifies the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Question

I basically know why from reading books, but I need some credible websites to use for information too. So, just leaving links to credible sites would be helpful. [No wiki.]

Answer 1

Here's a good discussion at Amazon.com. some good comments, some not so good.

Answer 2

I have No 'Credible Web-Sites' for you, in fact I can give no credible referrance points. Therefor, you can believe it or not.

However, I had an Uncle who was an POW at Nagasaki when the 'Big Bang' occurred, and it was about 35yrs before he would talk about.
Whist he had a number of Cancerous Ailments, that ranged from advanced Skin Cancers to Bone Cancer, and he had been undergoing various medical treatments. Since 1945 to when he passed away in 1980.

All he would say, about life on the front in Malaysia and life in the Camps. Is that 'it made all, thats been said Hell. Turn into a depiction of Heavan, by comparison'

Answer 3

here's a best answer I got on a similar question a few days ago.....should give you a bunch of places to google.....like"firebombing Tokyo" or "casualties of invading Japan"


'if you mean what were possible means to end the war, without dropping the A-bombs........

wait for the Russians to shift their forces 6,000 miles to the east and invade with them dividing up Japan the way Germany was being divided.

Continue the naval blockade of the Home Islands of Japan. leaving a million Japanese troops in Korea and China and Vietnam and Burma and ( today's) Indonesia....and leaving 20,000 American and 20,000 Brits and Australians in Japanese prison camps that made Auschwitz look like Club Med.....

Invade the Home Islands.....

When we liberated Guam and Saipan Islands, the Japanese
troops refused to surrender. All we could do was kill them all. The Japanese civilians on the islands also preferred death to surrender, and thousands of women killed their kids and them themselves rather than be taken prisoner.

When we captured Okinawa island, thousands of Japanese planes....the Kamikazes...flew one way missions form Japan to crash our ships. The Navy lost 4 times as many men and ships at Okinawa as we had at Pearl Harbor.
Gen Douglas MacArthur who knew the Japanese better than anyone, and who had lost less than a third of the numbers Ike had lost in Europe, predicted 1,000,000 Allied soldiers and sailors.....and we had only lost about 100,000 so far....dead or wounded. and probably 20,000,000 dead Japanese, including just about every man between 15 and 60.

or continue the B-29 fire bomb raids......2 months before Hiroshima, a thousand B-29s burned most of Tokyo to the ground and killed far more than in either A bomb strike. That wouldn't have solved the million Japs overseas or the conquered territory they held.

* 6 days ago

Answer 4

you need to go to a library for this.my opion is that they were not justified ,2000 giant B29 bombers were fire bombing every city in japan already[tokyo had 150,000 die in one raid]they had reduced every factoriy in japan to rubble,makes bombing germany look like a boy scout operation.they had already put out peace feelers and knew the war was lost.at the time japan was reputed to have as mant as 5,000,000 troops guarding home lands and after iwo jima and okinawa knew lots of americans would die,so that might explain the first one ,but the second one came down 3 days later and japans surrender was already inhand[if we would have waited 4or5 days it never would have been dropped.but each bomb was different ,one was a uranium bomb[first] and the second was a radical change[plut] they just wanted to test both to compare

Answer 5

Justify? Military necessity.

Answer 6

the fact is JAPAN STRUCK FIRST. a low, sneak attack after it was assuring us it wasn't planning any attacks. back the the atom bomb was just seen as a BOMB. without the stigma that gets attached to them today. they SHOULD all be scrapped and outlawed by the UN but as long as we were attacked first then all bets were off. japan COULD have SURRENDERED after the FIRST bomb.

Answer 7

one justification:
-it was a sure end to the war....if the US were to send thousands of troops to japan, more US soldiers would die, and it would probably last longer.
-It was also to show japan that we werent kidding. We were serious, and we would follow through with our threat.

Answer 8

Nothing. Burning babies is never justified