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?
Peaceman1 hit the nail on the head. 80000 people died in the bombings,i think but if the war had continued many more would have died, so the bombings actually saved lives.
You just made me remember one thing. The Americans knew that the Japanese would doubt that they were able to build many bombs. The Japanese had a nuclear weapons program, but like Germany, were unable to beat the Manhattan Project.
Whether or not one bomb was enough, at least more weren't dropped (as they planned).
Peaceman1 hit the nail on the head.
His point has been repeatedly made throughout this thread.
I have absolutely no source for this, only a vague memory of something I may have read in a book.
Apparently, the Japanese had plans to arm every man, woman, and child with some kind of weapon, often something as primitive as a sharpened bamboo stick. The plan was to make sure that the US couldn't have victory without eliminating every single living person on the island chain.
If this is actually true, then I think that annihilating two cities isn't quite as bad as an entire country and a huge number of soldiers.
The planned invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall), was to be countered by the Japanese defensive plans known as Operation Ketsugo. Read the page for more information.
You guys are forgetting Pearl Harbour. The A-bombs were what the Japs deserved
Have you read a single post all the way through? Pretty much everyone said that they thought the bombs were justified because it would've been a lot worse if we had to storm Japan. And yes, we remember Pearl Harbor. Lots of good people died. But don't forget where we dropped the A-bombs. In heavily populated cities with no military presence. We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. We probably should have bombed a military base or something.
At least we didn't hit Tokyo. We were saving it for last.
More people died in the firebombing and naval shelling of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima. You don't need to use nuclear weapons to cause death and destruction.
More people died in the firebombing and naval shelling of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima. You don't need to use nuclear weapons to cause death and destruction.
and therefore the bombing would have minimum affect. The bombs were used for show.
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
.
The problem was that the event led to nuclear developmet.
that was pretty underhanded to attack civilians that way
I know it was at the beggining of the thread but as said as of late, they woulda fought to the last man. Then you also have to look at what they did to the POWs and Civilians of other countries. What they did was 10 times worse than what we did.
All in all i think it was totally justified by this stuff alone. Plus all is fair in love and war right?
The bombs both combined killed about 220,000 people..
Even after the first bomb they refused to surrender. The second bomb was also pushed forward by 2 days to avoid bad weather. So the original plan would have given them enough time to consider it.
