Do you think it was right to drop the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Question

I think it was because, one, they did bomb Pearl Harbor and killed a lot of people. Sure more people probably died in Japan when the U.S dropped the bombs, but its like if someone, out of nowhere, punched you in the face, you would hit them back even harder right? Besides the U.S dropped the first bomb as a warning, Japan didn't surrender, so the U.S dropped another one, that was their fault. Whats your opinion?

Answer 1

Well, basically the actual deeds in themselves were WRONG. This is not because Japan didn't deserve something terrible to fall upon it. They and most of their people did. However when they dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki they not only wiped out the so called military base there, but they killed a lot of civilians and especially children-both then and future generations over time because of the radiation, but also there was a prisoner of war camp near Hiroshima as I have read accounts of the prisoners of war from there. It is wrong, no matter how you cut it and no matter what feeble excuse you come up with to wantonly kill the innocent. Killing the innocent is still killing the innocent. And all the devils in hell will not change that one iota, given they be given eternity to do so.



Having said this, however, Japan and most of it's people deserved the severest punishment for the evil and medieval system and action in which they made their moral choices to obey and do. And also you not only had the spectre of a bloody and horrible invasion of Japan-and can you imagine what that would have been like, but also the Russians coming down as well. Now, the bombs themselves probably ultimately saved more lives in the long run than they cost, which is in no way taking away from the wrong of killing the innocent. However it is a side benifit from the doing of wrong. And also the rulers of Japan must shoulder their share of the blame for committing Japan to moral wrong and conducting a war in such a cruel and brutal manner that they were responsible for bring upon their country the basics of destruction.



So on the whole although it was basically wrong as it did kill innocents-it did come out of the wash kind of benificial. Those innocents were of course killed and you cannot one whit take away anything from that, but one thing I'll will say is that at least evil was defeated. What the allies should have done is got more bombs(they only had two) and blown away Japan's infrastructure, power, shipping and military. They should have done this ruthlessly. This they fell down morally by taking the easy way out. Also after the war they should have gotten that son of a b***h mongrel of a filthy slime bag-HIROHITO and strung the c**t up by the b***S before burning his no good body. They should have cut a bloody swathe across the whole military class of Japan and any b*****d who was in league with these scum. They should have eradicated the basic idea of BUSHIDO and civilized the Japanese. As it was they compromised with evil and thus the same ideal still exsists today in Japan. Two example of this are the failure to recognise and the insistance not to recognise and do anything about the war atrocities and two, the flat refusal to compensate at least most of the women in World War II who were conscripted into forced prostitution. Or even acknowledge such. They still teach a biased, untruthful version of the war in Japanese schools which seeks to justifiy and cover up on their b*****d record. Inwardly many many Japanese subscribe to this evil, brutal, oppressive, tyranical and primitive philosopy of medieval BUSHIDO. This abomination has shown to the world and history what it is really about. It's death is called for by all that is holy and by the eternal halls of justice. In taking the easy way the allies have treated the symptoms and left the evil itself. And we may have to pay a horrible price in the future for this mistake.



You see, evil is evil and good is good and never the twain shall meet. They cannot meet by very definition and nature. Hence if you do that which is evil, no matter what the reason or circumstances-you do evil. Now they may be circumstances that could conncievabely justify such. However at the end of World War II - they were not it. But then think of this. Moral choices have physical consequences. The allies made a moral choice and because they chose the easy way out we were left with a nation still believing in what caused all the evil in the first place. We were left with a putrid vile creature that gave his assent and could have stopped it immidiatley. This creature in allowing such to take place was a whore in the hands of the tyranical military. But I suppose being brought up as a savage-what else could you expect. What we did with Hiromshima and Nakasaki was WRONG. But let us not forget all of the story. For that too would be wrong. Given that had already been done-the rulers of Japan should have been brought to account(and not just a few like Yammashita) and executed for the murder of those at Hiroshima and Nakasaki. For the Americans dropped the bomb, but the rulers of Japan created the circumstances, the provocation, the fanatasism and the evil to bring such to Japan and the moral choice for something horrible to fall upon them. One wrong does not justify another. This is what justice is for. And the whole story? The ruling class of Japan should have been sent to the deepest and darkest pit of hell by the most horrible means thinkable and avialble-with the emperor at their head.

Answer 2

Well Leo you thinking on this is very conventional. It is the propaganda that all governments give when engaged in war- 'they did it first'. Doesn't that sound childish? First you should know that Japan had been trying to surrender for two weeks prior to the bombing of Nagasaki. Also there were 31/2 years between Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki. Dropping a bomb on civilians and killing 80,000 children their mothers and a lot of old people is not a warning. By todays standards that is considered a war crime. I recommend you read the book 'Hisroshima' it will paint a detailed picture of the death, destruction and misery caused by the U.S.. There are people who believe that a million or more lives of American soldiers were saved because the Japanese were trained each and everyone to fight the Americans. What nonsense! If the U.S. were invaded I have no doubt the majority of Americans would want to defend themselves. The same goes for the Japanese people. They at the time however were no longer able to defend themselves. Remember the Kamikazi's? They had no more bombs! 'Crash the plane into the enemy ships' is all they had left. Remember it's governments that declare war, but it is the people that die in them.

Answer 3

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.



The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).



Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.

The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?



The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.



The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Answer 4

Hey Leo: Great question. It's one that will be asked for hundreds of years or until they come up with more horrible weapons. I think Calvin W has the right idea; you have to look at the information that was available at the time and make your decision based on that. I guess Truman did his best with the info he had.



And here's another way of looking at it: the 2 bombs killed how many people 150,000-200,000? How many Japanese would have been killed during an invasion? Millions?



PS. For all those people who interpret this answer that I am a war-monger, that is far from the truth. After seeing the horrors war can do to young men, I never want to see that again. Before politicians send young men off to war, they should be required to read every name on the Vietnam Memorial and go and visit their families and loved ones to see how it changed their lives. Then if the politicians still want to wage war, they should be the first ones to don uniforms and bear arms on the front lines. It wasn't that long ago that it was the kings and princes who led the armies into battle.

Answer 5

You may wish to read the book "Invasion of Japan" which deals with the planned allied invasion of Japan and the planned Japanese defense at the end of WWII to help arrive at your answer



It is likely, based on the Allied experience at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, that the invasion would have been WAY more costly in terms of both Allied and Japanese lives than the Bombs were. Estimates of dead from the invasion were 1 to 5 million (both sides)



Additionally there was an agreement with the Soviet Union that they would enter the war against Japan shortly after VE day. This would have likely ended with Japan being a divided country like Korea (the USSR occupying the North and the Allies occupying the South.)



Finally it is clear that the political fallout that would have occurred once the allies found out the US could have ended the war and did not would have been extensive.



Hard choices - but these facts are frequently overlooked by bomb apologists.

Answer 6

Sorry,but I don't agree. Most of the people killed in the attacks by us in Japan were innocent women, children, and elderly. Most able bodied men were in the military. Japan had been trying to surrender without "losing face'. But the American government did'nt want it that way. We did'nt drop to bombs to end the war. This is a lie. The bombs were dropped to scare the Nazis who were very close to having their own A-bomb. And the Russians who were in the stages to invade Japan themselves. Only about 3,000 people died in Hawaii. And it was'nt a sneak attack. A whole fleet of Japanese ships can't travel all the way from Japan without someone taking notice. Fact is , the American government was dying ti get into WWII. BTW, over 150,000+ people died in Japan. Thousands suffered for years afterward. Sorry again, the American government was wrong, again.

Answer 7

Yes. We were prepared to invade the home island of Japan. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the death. Even the women and children. The American death toll would have been in the millions. So the 500,000 Japanese deaths were nothing compared to the 2,000,000 Americans killed and the 1,000,000 Russians. That's for every one Japanese killed there would have been 6 others killed. If Japan did not surrender we would have dropped another bomb and then invaded the home islands. Many US troops probobly would've died to radiation poisoning.

Answer 8

Well I hope everything is okay now...I am Japanese and I live in Hawaii....Whats funny is that those places like Pearl Harbor and The Peace Park, They are charging admission fees to visit there...so even if it was wrong, they wouldn't get the money that they have now if that didn't happen....its kind of sad...I think Japan was wrong in boming Pearl Harbor but the people on the ship might have been able to fight back or save a couple of lives if they trusted the radar. For America....it was wrong but it was like revenge.....that revenge was pretty strong though...because people are still dying of Lukimia from their ansestors. Sad, sad world.

Answer 9

Looking at this decision in hindsight is not really productive. Truman had to make the decision faced with the prospect of losing a million men in an all-out invasion of Japan. He had no choice, but to do exactly what he did. Yes, the nuclear bombings were a horrible thing, but the only solution that could be made in light of the propect of incredible American casualities

Answer 10

if someone, out of nowhere, punched you in the face, you would hit them back even harder right?

- Wrong

This kind of attitude, especially with International affairs, destroys a lot of lives.

Defend yourself, yes, but at some time we have to reconsile our differences, not live out our frustration and resentment.



After Hiroshima, Japan wanted to surrender, but the only allies with an embassy in Japan was Russia. The message was held up by the Russians so they could see if US would follow through with their threat to drop another. (I heard this but have never had it confirmed)

Answer 11

I don't think they knew the kind of power they had in the atomic bomb, so no, I don't believe it was right. People in Japan are still suffering to this day for what the United States did...ah well, all is fair in love and war.

Answer 12

Yes, I do think it was a good idea, not because they bombed us first but because estimates showed it would probably save millions of lives both allied and japanese. The alternative was to invade Japan which would have extended the war for an unknown period of time.



War is never "pretty" and hopefully never will be because we already take it too lightly.

Answer 13

That used to be a tough resolution to make at the moment, allow by myself moment bet at the moment minus their standpoint. But sure, I think it used to be a proper resolution. Not always a well alternative, simply the bigger of 2 unhealthy offerings. Do we keep the conflict conventionally with an invasion of the Japanese mainland and extra demise on our part and on theirs, or will we drop the bomb and optimistically persuade the Japanese that to keep might be eventually futile. It surely stored Allied lives, and it most likely stored as many Japanese lives because the bombs took. Maybe extra. As a ways a the morality of it, it used to be a extra honorable motion towards a nation we have been at conflict with than the movements the Japanese took towards us at Pearl Harbor once we weren't at conflict. Even if their assertion of conflict has been submitted simply earlier than the assault as that they had deliberate, and we were "formally" at conflict, their assault so quickly after might were dishonorable. It might were the an identical of the financial institution calling you at five mins earlier than remaining time to graciously will let you recognise that each one price range on your account on the finish of the trade day might be confiscated, however you'll be able to come down earlier than we near and withdraw them.

Answer 14

Still it was a horrible thing to do though. Its not okay just to do what ever the crap you want like dropping bombs on helpless people. Seriously what was that president guy thinking?

Answer 15

YES! If the allies were to stage a invasion from the beaches like they did at Normandy,the casualties would have enormous on both sides.If you can accomplish the same thing with NO loss of American life it's worth it. Also, the Japanese were just a few months to a year away from their own nuke,do you honestly think they would not drop it on us?

Answer 16

War is never good, but, as cynical as it sounds, is usually productive. The US did need to take action, and we made a strong statement that got the attention of the world. You can never blame the innocent people who died, but war is war, and beginning with WWI, it became war, not just between militaries, but between countries, exemplified by WWII.

Answer 17

Nah... I mean... look what the atomic bomb did to Japan! They used to be normal intelligent folk, now they are sex obsessed people. The atomic bomb seriously messed them up. Do you know that they have vending machines in Japan that sell used schoolgirl underwear?



Ain't that some crazy ****?



I blame America for their perversion.

Answer 18

yes because america thinks of it a last way to stop WWII

and if they invaded japan, ( encouraged to fight even though they are civilians) may cause grater casualties on both sides.

Answer 19

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Answer 20

Well theres been no World war 3 yet , has there........

Answer 21

No