Well I'm pretty sure we all know about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atom bombs by America near the end of World War 2, right? Now here's my question: Was it justified? I mean, it's done and gone, but was it all right? I mean, it got Japan out of World War 2, which arguably was a vital step in the Allied victory. But billions of innocent people died in the bombed cities. But, also, as I said, this was a vital step in ending WW2. So it probably saved as many innocent lives as it killed, not just people captured by the Axis Powers, but soldiers as well. But the question still stands. Was the use of the atom bomb justified?
The atomic bomb was used to bring a cleaner end to the war. An invasion was already planned but the Americans wanted to avoid a long and costly conflict. They knew it would be very difficult to subdue the Japanese in their homeland and that it would take a lot of force and determination to take them down. Thus, bombs were dropped instead.
A few hundred thousand died in the bombings of the two cities.
I think it was justified. An American invasion would have led to more lives lost between Marines, Japanese soldiers and civilians. Also there would have been Red Army casualties. They were going to help the U.S invade as well.
Even if it ended up saving lives in the end it was one of the greatest atrocities of the twentieth century, behind the bombing of Dresden and the Holocaust. The manner in which they selected the cities was underhanded and cold. Hiroshima didn't have a real military presence. It was practically a control group for atomic testing. It was ringed in with mountains so the fallout would be contained in the valley and the parts of the city left unscathed.It was deliberately left un-bombed during the firebombing of the rest of the islands. This was so that they could tell how much damage came from the A-Bomb. It was treated like a science experiment. Nagasaki was chosen for similar reasons, and a third, more powerful bomb would have been used on Kyoto if the emperor didn't surrender. That last one would have been a blow below the belt. Kyoto is the spiritual/religious center of Japan and the customary abode of the emperor before Tokyo. That would be similar to nuking the Vatican City. So it had to be done, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. For a nation that wants a conventional war to be fought fair, that was pretty underhanded to attack civilians that way.
But billions of innocent people died in the bombed cities.
It was actually thousands... not even close to 1 billion >.>
Also there were two choices that could have happened.
1.) Invade the Japanese homeland (Japan) and end the war that way. This was seriously considered. It was almost guaranteed it would have been a success but at the cost of THOUSANDS of American lives that had already been through so much because of the war.
or 2.) Drop two bombs, killing civilians but saving American troops and probably SOME citizens from being killed in the invasion.
I agree with quakingphear and Lieutenut. Though the use of atomic bombs did kill a lot of civilians and was quite harsh, an invasion would kill more people. It was a tough choice but the better one in my opinion.
Luckily, bombs back then aren't nearly as powerful as they are now.
Invading Japan to end the war would have caused just as much bloodshed if not more. However, I can't really say for sure. I have mixed opinions on the matter.
It was estimated that there would me hundreds of thoussands of casualties if the war continued past when it ended - the A-Bombs killed about 750,000 (I think, not sure) whereas a normal continuation of the war would've cost more lives for both sides. To this day, there are some awful effects from it, but it was justified. It also prevented the Japanese from possibly winning the war - they wouldn't have surrendered unless we killed Hirohito and most of their army.
Invading Japan to end the war would have caused just as much bloodshed if not more. However, I can't really say for sure. I have mixed opinions on the matter.
It would of caused more. The invasion of Okinawa was hard enough. The Japanese may have collapsed abroad, but in their own territory, they were capable and ready. At that time, even the country's citizens were being trained to fight in preparation of an invasion.
The Japanese would not surrender too easily. A massive bloodbath would of ensued if Japan was invaded.
I remember watching a a documentary about WWII on the history channel(I can't remember what it was called because I watch a lot of WWII documentaries) and one bit of information(whether it is true or not) which is that Japan was trying to surrender before the bombs were dropped and Trueman wanted to show off Americas power to discourage a possible war with the Soviet Union in the future.
Hundreds of thousands of innocents were killed in the bombings then, mea culde. But that's still a lot of people but it's a little difficult to grasp the length of such mass murder.
I remember watching a a documentary about WWII on the history channel(I can't remember what it was called because I watch a lot of WWII documentaries) and one bit of information(whether it is true or not) which is that Japan was trying to surrender before the bombs were dropped and Trueman wanted to show off Americas power to discourage a possible war with the Soviet Union in the future.
Really? That sounds interesting. Could you post a link?
Really? That sounds interesting. Could you post a link?
I have watched that documentary. I also forgot its name. It said there that some Japanese officials were already secretly negotiating with the US. It also said that Truman used the atomic bombs as an opportunist to show off America's power/
as i recall seeing reading and hearing, is that the Japanese kept attacking the americans after they threatened them with the nukes, then the americans nuked 1 town, witch should have been enough but the japs kept attacking, so they attacked the second, then they caved.
As for the towns being a bit of an experiment too test how effective the bombs were, thats tottally correct. Hiroshima and nagasaki were the two saffest, and least damaged citys from the start of the war, until they where nuked. the americans made a point not too attack them so more people would go too them and they could really test the power of the bombs
Japan was ready to surrender by November 1945. The problem was that Russia was going to invade Japan on August 8th. This meant Soviet influence in Japan. So the US used the nukes to force a quick surrender and to limit Russian influence. It also showed the power that the US had. The plan worked well.
There always seems to be a lot of hype surrounding the atom bombings. Granted they were devastating, but more civilians were killed in the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden.
In any case, moderation in a situation of total war, to me at least, seems imbecile.
Even from a moral standpoint the bombings were justifiable. Likely 10 times as many lives would have been lost in a last stand defence of Japan had the Japs not surrendered when they did.
as i recall seeing reading and hearing, is that the Japanese kept attacking the americans after they threatened them with the nukes, then the americans nuked 1 town, witch should have been enough but the japs kept attacking, so they attacked the second, then they caved.
Wrong. The first bombing had completely devestated Japan, they understood they had no chance. The second bombing was unnecessary and idiotic.
Japan was ready to surrender by November 1945. The problem was that Russia was going to invade Japan on August 8th. This meant Soviet influence in Japan. So the US used the nukes to force a quick surrender and to limit Russian influence.
Another example of stupid things done by Americans during the Cold War. Along the lines of the space race, and the arms race.
