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?
Holy crap, who brought this thread back to life? It's been dead since August. Playaholic...-.- Anyway, might as well go along with it.
At least we didn't hit Tokyo. We were saving it for last.
No, I'm pretty sure we were going to bomb Kyoto next.
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.
Can you list a source? And does that include the deaths due to radiation?
The problem was that the event led to nuclear developmet. For example: "TZAR BOMBA"
No it didn't. The nuclear arms race was going on way before this bombing.
it took the japs a day to realive the first bombing
What? That makes no sense.
My only concern is that the Americans didn't seem to give the janpanese enough time to surrender after the first bombing :P
No, they wouldn't have surrendered if we didn't bomb them again, although a few more days to give them to surrender wouldn't have hurt much, I suppose.
The bombs saved a lot of Chinese. Period.
And a lot of Americans, and British, and Russian, and soldiers on both sides. But what I don't like about what we did is that we bombed a city with no real military significance. We were bombing civilians, not soldiers.
I think it was justified as it brought a cleaner and quicker end to the war what I say is the less war the better
First of all, when everyone is talking about the A-bombs, they always say, "America killed thousands of innocent civillians" All of WW2 was killing civillians. Hundreds of towns and cities with almost no military even in them were bombed, the nazis killed millions of jews and the japanese killed our medics when we tried to help them. We were in no way a leading factor in civillian casulties. Not only did we stay out of the war until they attacked us, we did not go around killing civillians EXCEPT for hiroshima and nagasaki. I would say our use of the A-Bombs was completely justified. It ended WW2 and stopped the random killing of civillians. Yes, they did kill thousands, but do you know what the total death toll was for WW2? It was somewhere around 30-40 million people, civillians included. We killed maybe...what, 100 thousands civillians AT THE VERY MOST counting radiation? Thats 1/10 of a million.
Remember, the beginning of World War II started with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, done by the Japanese. So, we sent two huge bombs right back at them (actually we dropped them) and got our vengeance. The difference in destruction is huge yes, but you can't just walk away from that kind of attack.
It was devastating, but imagine an invasion. Total disaster. Hundreds of thousands would have died on both sides. The bomb was a better choice of action.
the terrorist acctack (my spelling sucks) on america was in an army base and killed 0% inocent people, only soliders. but the act of TERRORISM carried out on the japs kill 100% inocent people. yes i say terrorism because thats what it was to them, just as it was to america.
First of all, when everyone is talking about the A-bombs, they always say, "America killed thousands of innocent civillians" All of WW2 was killing civillians. Hundreds of towns and cities with almost no military even in them were bombed, the nazis killed millions of jews and the japanese killed our medics when we tried to help them. We were in no way a leading factor in civillian casulties. Not only did we stay out of the war until they attacked us, we did not go around killing civillians EXCEPT for hiroshima and nagasaki. I would say our use of the A-Bombs was completely justified. It ended WW2 and stopped the random killing of civillians. Yes, they did kill thousands, but do you know what the total death toll was for WW2? It was somewhere around 30-40 million people, civillians included. We killed maybe...what, 100 thousands civillians AT THE VERY MOST counting radiation? Thats 1/10 of a million.
I completely agree with all of this.
the terrorist acctack (my spelling sucks) on america was in an army base and killed 0% inocent people, only soliders. but the act of TERRORISM carried out on the japs kill 100% inocent people. yes i say terrorism because thats what it was to them, just as it was to america.
It's not terrorism, it's WAR. Ever heard of it? Terrorist attacks are made by religious groups and are unprovoked. In war, expect anything.
Also, its hard to figure out what your talking about when you say things like "army base," and "the terrorist attack carried out on the Japs." I think you meant Pearl Harbor as the army base and the bombings as the "terrorism" (but it was NOT terrorism.)
Ever hear of the invasion of Poland 1 September 1939???
No need to be snippy about it. I think he meant the beginning of the war for America. That's when we joined, not necessarily the beginning of the war itself.
ya its justified because if we didnt use it than million of japenese and americans would have been killed in the invasion of japan so killing 21,000 is a lot better than killing 1 million +
