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?
Who brought in this terrorism thing? I thought we were talking about WW2. Anyways yes, valkyrie is right, terrorism is an unprovoked attack meant to assert that that governement or populous has done something wrong and that is their way of rebelling against it.
Yes they were both justified. When the coup to overthrow emperor Hirohito was happening and interfered with his ability to decide and act we did not know about these events. We could only assume that he was not ready to decide. Also the firebombings were far more devastating in their implementation due to the fact that the fires did not stay only in Tokyo. Japan had to be shown that we were capable of delivering power in multiple ways to ensure surrender. Remember when Pearl Harbor was bomber, Japan was giving us fake offerings of peace. It sickens me that so many innocents were killed by the 2 atomic bombs but the alternative was far worse.
the firebombings were far more devastating in their implementation
the A-Bombs were worse.
with firebombings, it had been seen before, and they knew what they were up against.
no one had ever seen something like the atomic bomb before, and they had no idea how much damage the US could cause, or how many bombs were left. for all they knew, we had enough bombs to level all of Japan.
Yes but there was no real terrorism going on in WWII.
Somehow I think all of the Jews, Catholics, Gipsies, Cripples, and Homosexuals of Germany and the lands that they invaded would argue with you. But it's just a hunch.
Is there some definition of "justified" from which we're working? If one person says the a-bomb was justified and another says it wasn't but from a different definition of justified, then we're just talking past one another. Certainly, the U.S. had justification for dropping the bomb. Consider the fact that Tokyo was 60 percent gone after the U.S. retaliated for Pearl Harbor and the no-surrender mentality of the Japanese. Add that with the mounting U.S. death toll while island hopping, and it would seem the U.S. had good reason to want a quick end to the war. But considering that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets, perhaps the use of a-bombs was justified, but not these specific instances. Can someone offer a sense of justification that we can accept for analyzing the use of nuclear weapons?
The bombs were worth it, The Japanese general could have backed down when we gave him the last warning. He didn't, so we showed him the power of "The Great American War Bird" (Of course when did "The Bird of Freedom" change)
Here's my sense of justification. The A-bombs in the end saved more lives than would have previously occured if the war had continued and the fighting had not stopped until japan was completely destroyed because they do not and did not surrender and only the massive display of force and power such as the A-bomb caused them to reconsider their values, honor or life, and they chose life. Even though yes, the A-bombs killed many innocents, many more would have died if the war had been fought from one bloody island to the next until neither side had any more to throw at each other. So that's my justification, hope you agree with it.
Tomer, you really need to explain youself more. I think you mean that America would have had 10 years more of concealing the Atomic bomb so other countries would be 10 years behind. As for the
billions of bucks
is that supposed to be how much we spent or saved or what?
What are you talking about Gaga, the war was no where close to over. We were fighting bloody battles down to one person on each island on the way there. The war was no where near to completely over. Yes, we were winning, but Japan did not surrender because of their beleif in honor. They would not have surrendered until we stormed into their major towns and started killing everything. It took one big display of power after another to show them that we were willing to do what it took to defeat them. There would have been so many more deaths if we had not used the atomic bombs.
I do not think that act could ever be justified. my reasons are;
japan was already embargoed by the whole world(allies and soviets) before even attacking pearl harbor , Yamamoto (admiral of japanese armada)waited a long time for intensive negotiatons between allies and japan hoping they would lift them but to no avail...japanese had only months of fuel left in their depots so if they wouldnt attack they would be sitting ducks for US invasion and US was expecting this oppurtunity to enter the war(this would make sending reinforcements to china legal while they were doing that undercover)
you may ask how could it be profitable for US to let his half of its navy destroyed;the US military intel knew that japanese force was en route to pearl harbor,before the attack 83% of US population was against intervention on war after the attack more than a million of people have volunteered
also Roosevelt have ignored the warning because of knowing that japanese did not have the industry nor economy to produce proper reinforcements for their navy unlike the US who have rebuilt the 50 percent of its armada that is destroyed in pearl harbor in a very short time
japan was fighting on two fronts against comitern in china and US on the other side,china was taking supplies and all kinds of airplanes from both soviets and US secretly
as you can see japan was greatly outnumbered and they could sustain the war for just 6 months after pearl harbor that is why japanese was planning to surrender months before the conflict has started but they just couldnt able to do that because of traditions(emperor and its holy war) after the bombing they said we surrender because of our peoples sake(still not admitting the defeat of their emperor and its imperial navy...its kinda sad I think)
after the a-bombs US invaded japan(as no one said above) not because of military reasons but because of japanese could not provide enough food nor water for its peoples due to destroyed infastructure , they were stuck with the US supplies that are shipped in order to avoid proliferation of the destroyed 2 cities--this is why in these days it seems unususal by the viewpoint of mass media that japanese decline the proposals the US offers,japan has rebuilt itself with the aid of the US and US still sees japanese as a half-dead man,while japan tries to take decisions against the US foreign policies by showing the world that they no longer need US to be self sufficient US knew japanese was out of war by the time pearl harbor has commenced-even Yamamoto says "we have awakened the sleeping giant" he was aware that they were kind of kamikaze pilots or cannon fodders whose sole purpose is to delay the US invasion,he was aware that his country could not rebuilt the armada he has if it gets destroyed unlike the US
some of you guys say that bombs are used to avoid more civilian casualties,well how much civilian could die in 6 months of war?
In 6 years of war total, with lets just say 40 million dead, that's approximately 3.3 million dying every 6 months. The atomic bombs in no way killed that many. By logic of math, they saved lives.
