I know there's definitely another post like this somewhere.  I swear I searched for it, but once I got to page 25 of discussions and couldn't find it, I decided to make a new one.

The title says it all.  What do you think about the dropping of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

If it solves problems, then sure

If it solves problems, then sure

That's a great way to remember the lives lost there....

Nope. I know it ended the war, but the deaths of so many civilians...that's not part of war, that's slaughter.

Personally, I think that the dropping of the atomic bombs was completely justified.  We had already lost millions of men and had no intention of losing more.   Some argue that we had no right to kill thousands of civilians, but we killed more people in 1 single night of conventional bombing than we did using the atomic bombs.  Also, an invasion could've cost us millions of men, and probably would have decimated Japan's population and country.  Japan would not have ceased fighting until all was completely lost.  They would also fight from the soldiers down to the children.  We lost more Americans taking Iwo Jima than total Allied losses during D-Day.  Out of over 21,000 Japanese defenders, we took 1,083 prisoner.  The rest died in battle or killed themselves.  The atomic bombs brought a quick end to the war that not many people wanted to continue fighting.

@Mike412:  We killed thousands more people by bombing Tokyo with only conventional bombs.

We killed thousands more people by bombing Tokyo with only conventional bombs.

Taking out military facilities, fine. Dropping two bombs and killing 200,000 civilians, with no pretense of trying to prevent civilian casualties? I'd say that's worse, as it wasn't a valid military target taking into consideration the sheer scope of the destruction

Civilian deaths= More reason to surrender

@Mike412:  Yes, we did take out military targets, but it was mostly carpet bombing-just flying along dropping bombs in a row.  We reduced Tokyo to ashes with incindiaries, and, at the time, most of the buildings in Tokyo were built in the conventional style-wood and rice paper.

the other nuclear bomb post is just 2 down from yours...should this one be locked?

Civilian deaths= More reason to surrender

What, should the Japanese have bombed New York instead of Pearl Harbor? Chicago? Atlanta? The more civilian casualties the better it appears.
No. War is brutal, yes, but in fighting at least the people have a choice to defend themselves. Civilians can't defend themselves against atomic bombs. If war was fought like that, humanity would never survive. Its amazing its lasted this long with such violence

Yes, we did take out military targets, but it was mostly carpet bombing-just flying along dropping bombs in a row.  We reduced Tokyo to ashes with incindiaries, and, at the time, most of the buildings in Tokyo were built in the conventional style-wood and rice paper.

I'm not saying that that was much better, but at least it had some military justification, even it was extremely stretched. Wars of attrition only end with both sides losing, no matter who surrenders

Well everyone rebuilt now, so does the history of it all matter?