Question

Was the United State's dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified or not?

Answer 1

I believe this action was difficult but justified, and I also believe that it ended World War II.

Although many thousands of lives were lost in these two bombings, this decision was taken with the knowledge that many thousands more would have died had World War II continued to escalate and expand. The U. S. needed to use its considerable military might to bring that escalation to a sure and sudden end.

Answer 2

it was JUSTIFIED
as On August 6th 1945 the atomic bomb called ‘Little Boy’ was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. 4.7 square miles of the city were levelled and 70,000 to 80,000 killed outright. Three days later, on August 9th, a second bomb, ‘Fat Man’ was dropped on Nagasaki. The damage and casualties were lower, some 1.45 square miles destroyed and 35,000 killed. However both of those casualty figures would double as the effects of radiation took their toll. In Hiroshima 130,000 had died by November and 200,000 by 1950. The Nagasaki death toll similarly rose to 120,000.[1] On August 15th Japan announced its surrender, and so brought to a close the six years of the Second World War and the eight years of the Second Sino-Japanese War. The decision to drop the atomic bombs, the only nuclear weapons ever used, was and still is highly controversial.

Answer 3

You could argue either way. I sort of goes back to the old saying, "Does two wrongs make a right?". The reasons why the US did it are pretty well documented. Here are some quotes from Truman:
In his first public explanation (Aug. 6, 1945, just after Hiroshima was a-bombed), he said: "The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold."
("Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S Truman, 1945", pg. 197).

On Aug. 9, after Nagasaki was a-bombed, Truman made another public statement on why the atomic bombs were used: "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans."
("Public Papers of the Presidents: Harry S Truman, 1945", pg. 212).
Source for quotes: http://www.doug-long.com/truman.htm

Answer 4

mattnewman you show off lol

Answer 5

You trying to make me look bad

Answer 6

Just helping out Stud the best I can. There really is no right answer to the question. Just look at some of the debates: http://debates.juggle.com/was-the-u-s-justified-in-dropping-bombs-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

Answer 7

yea i read them already

Answer 8

No absolutely not justified. did their casualities match ours? They did attach peril harbor , but we blew them off the map. Germany deserved that more than Japan. No the use of this kind of force did not match the crime and it was absolutely not justified. Not many people are going to tell us that however, knowing we have those bombs.

Answer 9

The reason your teachers are asking this is obvious. The teacher believes that it was not justified and wants you to reason through to discover that yourself. The status quo pro american answer is yes, but really Guys, blowing women and children off the map, civilians? They attacked our base so we should have attacked their base. Attacks on civilians is absolutely not justified in any case. THIS ACT OF KILLING THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN CIVILIANS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED> SOMETHING INSIDE OF YOU SHOULD TELL YOU THAT.

Answer 10

those women and children and probably many more after them would have died if usa had of invaded mainland japan why are you ignoring that fact?

Answer 11

How so? US has used a retroactive justification to sell those actions, but they did not even realize how devastating those bombs would be. So, morally, the use of force does not match the crime. It was a war crime that targeted civilians and if it had been anybody else but us that did that, the whole world would have stripped us of any and all military capabilities. This action was amoral and not justified, I don't know how anyone can justify it. They did kill a few thousand people, but we killed hundreds of thousands. They attacked a military base and we attacked two civilian cities. these actions do not match.

Answer 12

any city has civilians living in it. but those 2 cities were chosen for military importance. they weren't trying to save Japanese lives, but they didn't want to have to kill everyone on the island either. the bloodshed that would have ensued if usa had landed on the beaches would have been catastrophic. both for US troops (which is what they were mostly thinking about) and for the entire island of japan. can you imagine how many less people would have come home from WW2? how much longer it would have lasted? how deep seeded the hatred would be after an occupation of japan. i understand that the abombs were overkill, but overkill was the only option that remained viable. its not about morality or the greater good. its about saving their own asses and killing the enemy. that's what war is.

Answer 13

think of batman. we need batman because he puts on his disguise and does what he has to do to protect his people. he doesn't want to do it. but he MUST. it's the biggest burden to be imagined, tearing apart your morality and leaving it in shreds. the same concept can be applied here. i'm tired of people talkin about how immoral it was to drop the bomb. It was just as immoral to shoot anyone in the first place. anyone who participates in active warfare can be said to be immoral but we don't do that. because we can't because they do what needs to be done.

Answer 14

I cannot say this any more emphatically, HELL NO

Answer 15

So you b ase your justification on a bunch of hypotheticals what if we had to go tto Japan what if they came here? Using that train of reasoning, let us just nuke thw rest of the world as a preemptive strike, if morality has no basis and it is about our own retrice A justification speaks to morality. So is it justified is inherently a moral question