This is a debate I get into quite often for some reason. Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki really justified?

(I did my best to research so if you believe anything is wrong feel free to point it out)

The argument for it being justified usually consists of how they were causing less harm by dropping the bomb because they would have attacked railways and their food sources. This would in turn kill more Japanese out of starvation. However prior to the bombs dropping the Japanese approached the Soviet Union and tried to surrender through them; the condition being that they get to keep their Emperor as their Emperor is sacred to them. However the US wanted an unconditional surrender so they refused.

Another side of the story is that the Americans gave the Japanese an ultimatum before the bomb was dropped to surrender (unconditional was implied) but the Japanese refused the unconditional surrender.

But those two points aside lets focus on the fact of the main reason America may have wanted to drop the bomb. If they wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor why attack a city with civilians and no real army bases? 2,500 people died at Pearl Harbor and 1,000 more were wounded so I don't see how killing 100,000 civilians is justified.

This theory has been passed around quite a bit and it's that the main reason America dropped the bombs was to demonstrate their power. Most likely to intimidate the Soviet Union. This of course and many other events would lead to the Cold War.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe the bombs were justified or unjustified?

The mass murder of thousands of innocent civilians is in no way justified, nor will it ever be. What the US did was wrong no matter how one looks at it. Yes, the Japanese refused to surrender, but that doesn't mean we have the right to destroy their country using atomic weapons. Nobody would in that situation unless the country in question was an immediate threat (which I'll admit, we were), but absolutely no one has the right to bomb a country if it involves attacking the innocent.

Would you say 911 was justified? 
I imagine everyone who read this will say no,  regardless of what America did,  right or wrong,  attacking civilians is immoral.
Taliban, isis, evil for killing thousands of people with bombs, guns etc.
Targeting civilians is wrong says the government.
Unless you target them with a 20 tonne nuclear warhead with the capacity to wipe out all structures within hundreds of square miles, and spew radiation accross thousands more.
Thats different. 
Somehow.

Kind of like decrying handgun ownership while touting an rpg.
Or 5000 nuclear warheads. Same difference. 

The Japanese have a culture different from our own (American, western European, Canadian).  Their government claimed to be prepared to fight to the death with every man, woman, and child that was capable of holding weapons.  That means putting U.S. troops, English troops, and Allied forces against children, old women, kids, everyone who could hold a gun, hold a knife, throw a grenade, and so on.

They were willing to sacrifice an entire culture, Japan, and fight to the death over surrender.  Wiping out a people would have cost the U.S. a massive number of people.  

I think the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which had been warned would happen but Emperor Hirohito did not believe the U.S., saved the Japanese from themselves.  It forced the hand of the government to surrender with sacrificing their citizens.

Two cities were destroyed in the most horrible way possible.  But Japan exists now.  

I think it was justified.

DrakPokeMaster : Oh, so that means we should have just risked the lives of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that it would have taken to perform the full scale invasion that would have been necessary otherwise. Risking the lives and pain of thousands of our own and for thousands of Japanese? Or are you saying that we should have just let Japan win. Hey, these guys started it first. They are the prideful idiots that decided to bomb pearl harbor while pretending a truce. In all reality, the atomic bomb was the most human way the war could have ended. The japanese never surrender. They would and were giving their lives just to fight longer. They would never give up and as a result, would have either won, or waited till we practically destroyed their entire country, and sacrificed way too many of our own.

FaithFighter : I'm saying we chose a bad place to drop the bombs.

DrakPokeMaster : So where we should we have dropped them?

FaithFighter : Somewhere were innocent people wouldn't've been hurt, like a military base, or somewhere that wouldn't cause so many needless deaths.

FaithFighter : A better place to drop them would have been a place where there were Japanese army base. But America most likely wanted to demonstrate there power most likely to the Soviet Union. If the bomb was dropped on soldiers it wouldn't have been nearly as bad. But to drop it on civilians who have nothing to do with the war is basically bullying.

Blubcreator : No offense to you all, but the japanese are a very unique people. They all would give anything for the honor of their country. I understand what you both are saying. But the only thing that hitting the millitary base would co is hurt their army. In order to end the war, the Americans needed to strike some serious fear into Japan. They needed something that would crush their will to fight. Dropping the atomic bombs was something that the Japanese had brought upon themselves. Hey, was America not the first one to be helping their enemies in the war--including--Japan to recover from it? We did not want the war, but it was necessary to protect ourselves and the interests of others. Losing this war was not an option. And the fact that people debate about something years later after it happened, is just beyond me. Crushing the Japanese' will to fight did more damage than if you destroyed every base that they ever had. Yes, it seems inhumane, but it really was the only and best way, and choosing the city was necessary to break the Japaneses will and pride. I think that people who go on about how we should have dropped the bombs differently do not really grasp all the facts about the war. I do not mean that you do not know anything about it, but that some of the critical facts that influenced the tough decision.


Just so you all know, I do not like the fact that so many of the Japanese were killed by the bombs at all. I wish that there indeed was a different route.But I know that any other route would have prolonged the war, risked more of our soldiers, and been more trying for eveyone--especially when you are fighting people that do not know how to give up!

Yes, it was. The Japanese declared total war on the USA. They got a total response. The axis powers made thier bed for thier people.

It might sound harsh, but so was the outcome if the Allies weren't totally victorious.

i don't care either way the past is the past and we can't change it. i think they should have gone about it in a different way maybe drop them in area of japan that had no population out in the woods some where to show them the true power that we had and intimidate them rather then slaughtering thousands of innocent people. i also think how many soldieres on both sides would have died fighting this war. i feel like japan would have not quit either way thats just there culture. but im not sure it was a tuff call either way but like i said we should have tried intimidateing them first and if that didn't work then well you know. i think its unfortunate either way that all those innocent people died

Killing people is never an answer to any solution as revenge leads to more revenge as hate leads on to more hate. America could of done it differently than deciding to kill innocent people. So that's a straight No for me.

As a tactical maneuver to win? Of course.

Morally? Of course not.

There have been so many moral atrocities committed during wartime, I wonder why people engage themselves in the pointless endeavor of trying to justify the dropping of the bombs.

Do you think Truman truly cared about the Japanese when making this wartime decision?

He cared about winning, and losing as few American lives as possible. Like any competent leader would.

Anything about preventing more death is pure speculation and solely meant to please the public's (and his own) moral compass. If you're searching for moral justification for actions and/or minimizing opponent lives lost, war is not the right place to be looking.

This is a hot topic.
I'd say that it depends on your point of view. If you're Japanese, the bombs killed tons of your civilians and future fighters, forcing a dishonorable surrender. Not good from a Japanese standpoint.
If you're American, the bombs saved your way of life. The bombs saved your culture.
That's kind of the way I'd look at it.
Two cultures warring against each other, and one has to lose. I think that the US did a good job of showing how serious they were. From a war standpoint, it was a good tactic.
From a moral standpoint? Well, morality would favor a complete lack of war in the world... so anything in war can be seen as bad and horrid.