Was the United States justified in the dropping of the atomic bomb?

Question: Was the United States justified in the dropping of the atomic bomb!?

during wwii in japanWww@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Technically no if you want to be ultra moral, because if you examine the history, we made progress and were pushing the Japanese back before we dropped the bomb!. But in American fashion we wanted to end the war now and any idea of another war, which isn't wrong!. So I guess that is why they dropped it!. also, I don't think they wanted to waste a really good bomb (even I see the oxymoron in good bomb)!.

But you can argue yes, because it is a war and the unorthodox beat the orthodox according the The Art of War and you can always say they hit us first, we just hit them back harder!.

But then again, there are rules to war or codes that are polite to follow, not killing civilians, not killing medics, not killing those who surrender, blah!.!.!. But I don't know of a country that is known for following every code all the time!.

But, not dropping nukes, wasn't a code back then!. So its like habeas corpus in the end, and yeah the U!.S!. was justified!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Yes and Yes!.
100,000 Projected alied deths to take Manland japan

I'd like to thank all servicemen for your sacrifices in defending this country that some have taked for granted!.
Thank youWww@QuestionHome@Com

Yes!.

One has to understand the Japanese way of thinking at the time!. Shintoism, the worship of one's ancestors!. To bring no disgrace upon one's house or family name!. To surrender without fighting to your last breath would have been considered an ultimate disgrace!.

The Bushido Code!. To die for the emperor is one's duty and glory!.

The Japanese had thousands of suicide aircraft stashed (found in caves after the war), suicide boats, and every man, woman, and child was being trained to fight a US invasion with bamboo spears!.

To have launched Operation Downfall (invasion of Japan) would have cost the allies millions of casualties, and the Japanese more than twice that!.

To try to cut off the home islands might have contained the Japanese to a degree, but it would not have ended the war!. Equilibrium would have been achieved concerning the Japanese and their ability to survive!. They would have not stopped fighting, and allied troops, sailors, and airmen would have continued to die!.

Dropping the bomb, while horrific, paled in comparison to the carnage of an invasion!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

yes, it ended the war!. So no more american lives would be lost!. It was deffently worth it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Remove the word "atomic" from you question and ask again!. If any strategic bombing was justified, then it was!. Neither Germany nor Japan developed a strategic bomber!. The Soviets also stressed the tactical bomber!. Note, though, that both the Germans and the Japanese used their tactical bombers as best they could in the same role!. Everybody at the time considered that in total war it was legitimate to bomb factories, ports, and other infrastructure that supported the war effort, and the bombers and bombs of the time simply were not capable of precision bombing!. The spectacular pictures we saw in the first Gulf War were the culmination of decades of development in that direction but only a dream in the 1940's!. That meant that, in order to take out a factory, it was necessary to send dozens or even hundreds of bombers over the target and plaster the area, accepting large amounts of collateral damage!. Some, "Bomber" Harris and "Hap" Arnold among them, thought targeting civilians as a terror measure was legitimate, as well!. The bombing raid on Tokyo on the night of 9/10 March 1945 is generally thought to have caused more casualties than any other raid in the war, including the bombing of Hiroshima!. If that raid was justified, the one on Hiroshima certainly was!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

At the time we faced a 1 million man death rate if we invaded the island!. Did it save American lives yes, did we kill helpless people yes!. Did we want to scare the world yes!. Many American soldiers were being sent out of Europe and trained to fight in the Pacific!. Many felt they had used all of their luck!. So from an American point of view yes we were justified!. From a Japanese point of view no we were not justified!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

one need to keep enemy threaten with all the weapons!.!.!.!.!.if want self safe,,,,yeah its justified!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Before you consider the morality of the atomic bomb, I'ld like to suggest you consider another World War II invented weapon of mass destruction called Napalm!. Now although I'm sure you've heard of this weapon before, most people don't really understand the true nature of it!. A napalm or fire bomb is a weapon which essentially a large container of gelled petroleum with a small conventional explosive (TNT) inside of it!. When dropped from a plane, this weapon is timed to detonate close to it's target surface at which time it will spread a fine layer of this petroleum gel over a wide area, which in turn ignites and burns at an incredibly high temperture!. What makes this gel particularly effective though is it's natural adhesiveness!. It sticks to everything!. Wood, steel, earth, HUMAN BODIES and it burns so effectively that its nearly impossible to extinguish by smothering or submersing it!. In other words, if you get hit by it, you could go jump in a lake or smother yourself in a fireproof blanket, or stop, drop, and roll in sticky mud, but it still wouldn't matter, You're still going to be on fire!.

Pretty picture huh!?

With that in mind consider this!.!.!.!.

In the week before the US military dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, a heavy lift bombing operation was executed against the Japanese capital of Tokyo which lasted four days!. Throughout the course of this campaign, all variety of airborne weapons in the Allied arsenal were employed but none so heavily as the napalm that was specifically targetted towards the wooden residential neighbourhoods of the civilians that kept the munitions factories going!. It's estimated that over 120,000 Japanese civilians died!.

A few days later, the US dropped one single bomb which killed just around half that amount (60,000) by literally vapourizing them to deaths very similar to being hit by conventional explosives (ie: blunt trauma, dismemberment, etc)!. A few days after that, they hit Nagasaki with the second atom bomb killing over 40,000!. There has been nuclear fallout effect in both places ever since!.

So, this leaves you with a question to ask!. Is killing 100,000 people with two weapons in two days worse than killing 120,000 with thousands of weapons in four!? Is being instantly vapourized better than being oil soaked and cooked at 1000 degrees!? Or is it better to die from radiation two weeks later!? My point is there is a lot or really bloodthirsty, ghoulish questions one needs to consider and if you really want to make a fair and frank argument, you just can't consider the use of the atomic bomb and ignore everything else that happened at the end of the Pacific war!.

Personally, I feel that if the American government, and particularly Mr!. Truman had been better advised, took more time to plan, and truly believed the arguments they made for the use of the atomic bomb, they would have used it far earlier than they did and only would have used one of them!. The whole point of the use of the bomb was to fully demonstrate that technology was firmly on the Allied side and would be reason enough for the Japanese to surrender!. Did they need to burn down Tokyo first or drop a second bomb to do that!? I believe the answer is a firm no!. I'll leave it up you to consider if you agree with me!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The US could've firebombed Japan into submission, but then the War would last another year!. They wished to end the conflict quickly!. The Atomic Bomb was the ultimate form of SHock and AweWww@QuestionHome@Com

If you take the position that killing is never justifed, then no - you cannot justify it!.

However, if you look at it from a practical standpoint, realize that you're at war, and that ending said war is the only way to prevent greater killing, than yes - it was justified!. An invasion would have cost millions of lives, and lasted years!. The bombs, although they killed hundreds of thousands, saved many, many more!.

It's sad, but it's true!.Www@QuestionHome@Com