Was The Atomic Bombing Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki Justified?


9 Answers

Asuka Jr. Profile
Asuka Jr. answered
Considering that the Japanese people are a proud and strong people, and that the general public had been told that if Americans managed to land on Japanese soil that they would burn, rape, pillage and destroy everything in their path in a genocidal hatred for all things Japanese, and that even though their military was being crushed at nearly every turn toward the end of the war in the Pacific, so much so that in desperation, and to show their absolute refusal to accept defeat they created the Kamikaze (Divine Wind, or Wind of God) as an effort to use this ultimate act of sacrifice to try to weaken the US military...
 There were many studies and analyses of known Japanese beliefs and behaviors, and it was determined that in the event of a land-based war on Japanese soil, that the most likely scenario was that either the populace (not just the military) would fight to the death over every inch of Japanese soil, or (as was shown on islands the American forces captured) would commit suicide, rather than be taken by American forces...
 Knowing this, and understanding that a land war with a people that would go to these extremes would most likely cost not only countless Japanese lives, but also the lives of unknown numbers of American soldiers...the decision was made to use these new weapons to attempt to convince the Japanese military and leadership that continuing a war against the US would only result in a TRUE genocide, and end of life as they knew it in Japan...
 The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while incredibly destructive and most commonly viewed as far more force than was justified, still represented the fastest end to a possible land war in modern times.
 There are those who will decry the acts as ones of blatantly inhuman violence, and will claim that the loss of life and suffering of the residents could never be justified, and they are certainly welcome to their opinions, however, due to those acts, Japan never suffered the widespread carpet bombings that destroyed more historical and cultural artifacts and places throughout Europe than any prior military action, and most likely saved the lives and livelihoods of MILLIONS of Japanese citizens due to the rapid surrender tendered by the Japanese leadership after Nagasaki was bombed.
 Please keep in mind that while ALL countries involved in military actions commit acts of inhumanity against the 'enemy' in times of war, there are also truly horrific acts done that SHOULD be considered war crimes (the Nazi Concentration Camps, the intentional genocidal acts against the Kurdish people, and Japan's use of the Mongolian people to test fleas as a possible effective deliverer of the plague to enemy locations... Look it up, no bull. They intended to keep the infected fleas on ice so they'd stay dormant, then drop them in clay urns close to population centers to let them thaw and begin to do what fleas do, and in the process deliver the plague to the local population and their domestic animals), when you look at how effective the use of these two explosive devices were in the ending of a war, it's kind of hard to keep the hard-line of 'This was a horrible act of genocide!!', especially if you are willing to recognize the cost we paid to slowly march across Europe in a land-war to finally defeat the Nazi war machine...
 So yes. Considering the unique nature of the people we were at war with, I feel the use of the atomic devices used in Japan were justified (and this is from someone who truly loves Japanese culture and history) on the grounds that it allowed the preservation of the Japanese culture on a scale that was unable to be maintained so well in the European theater... In this case, the ends justified the means.
 But as in all things a person can write on the Internet, this is only my opinion based on the information I have learned... Perhaps I'm wrong, and it would have been better to have used conventional bombing techniques over the entirety of Japan, rather than accepting the sacrifice of two cities as the cost of ending the war...
Chris ???? Profile
Chris ???? answered
Genocide is never justified. That is why we took a proper approach to the war in Iraq. Spare the innocent and slay the culprits. Why recklessly murder hundreds of thousands of innocent lives? And for what?  they have done nothing to meet their demise but happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was no doubt a heinous crime indeed and it is safe to state that we Americans shall never ruthlessly murder human lives ever again.
Anonymous Profile
Anonymous answered
What we must remember is that we were in a total war; winner takes all. The situation was not like how it is now. We were terrified, not only as a nation, but as a world. The Japanese forces had already demonstrated how determined and uncompromising they were. The atomic bombings were awful, and horrific. But I believe they were necessary under the conditions of ending the war, but only from an American viewpoint. I don't blame Truman because he was primarily in charge of protecting America under all circumstances. He did his duty. But now that nuclear weapons are so far widespread, we will never have another time period equally like that of the end of WW2. It will never be the same. And I believe the use of nuclear weapons will almost never be justified again.
martha Profile
martha answered
Japan brought us into the war by bombing Pearl Harbor!  We have the right to defend our selves.  War is never good, but unfortunately it is a part of our fallen world.
Anonymous Profile
Anonymous answered
Yes.  Japan was required to surrender without conditions.  They could not be allowed to
continue the atrocities they were committing in China, Korea or the Philippines.
They were not willing to surrender.  They made overtures to Russia to surrender without
giving up their mainland acquisitions.  That could not be accepted.
What is interesting is to read their own documentation of surrender.  When we dropped the
first bomb, they sent a delegation to HIroshima to verify it.  They refused to believe we had
an atomic bomb.  Delegates became sick within 12 hours and the Japanese military heads
had to believe it.  They thought then that the US had only one bomb.  No country could have
enough radioactive material for two bombs.  Then we dropped one on Nagasaki.  The
Emperor became involved and insisted on surrender.
Without the bombs, Japan would have fought tooth and nail for their country.
Anonymous Profile
Anonymous answered
I don't think so, people say it brought an early end to the war in the pacific and saved allied soldiers lives, however the fact is thousands of innocent civilians were targeted, and killed. Conventional bombing on cities targeting civilians during world war 2 was bad enough, but the Americans knowing how destructive the atom bombs they were planning to drop were, shouldn't have used them.
Mia jones Profile
Mia jones answered
No it wasn't because many Japanese civilians were targeted and instantly killed, others were injured by radioactive material. This was unnecessary considering that the Japanese wanted to surrendered days before the first bombing. As well the Japanese were already losing the war, it was only a matter of time before the Americans invaded. Killing innocent people just to end the war is not a valid reason the Americans knew what they were doing, bombing innocent civilians twice is atrociously unjustified.
Anonymous Profile
Anonymous answered
Probably because ...it is the fastest wasy to stop war isn't it? And it cna scare the Jpanese easily and make them surrender.

Answer Question