Can the dropping of the atomic bomb be justified?

Answer 1

your father, grandfather, uncle, or brother had survived the European war, then was sent to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. Millions of soldiers were scheduled to take part in this action and at least half a million were expected to die. If your relative had died in a September-October invasion and you later learned that Truman had access to a weapon that would have almost certainly ended the war in August without costing a single American life, you (and millions of other Americans) would have been ready to lynch the President. It is also a fact that there were LESS Japanese casualties from the two nuclear bombs than from the firebombings that preceeded them and these would have continued for at least a month or two before the invasion. Another point is that the Japanese people had been instructed to defend the home islands by all means, even to attack tanks and troops with shovels, broomsticks, and rocks. If this had happened, the defeat of Japan would have meant the end of the Japanese culture. In the early 1940s the United States found themselves pulled into the war by the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Thus, incase of another emergency a group of international scientists from Germany, Canada, and United Kingdom formed the Manhattan Project. The sole purpose of the Manhattan Project was to successfully create and test the very first nuclear weapon in the world, giving the Allied Powers a distinct advantage in World War II. On August 6th and 9th of 1945 Harry Truman decided to drop the two atomic bombs, "Little Boy" and "Fat Man", on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing around 200,000 people, most due to exposure to radiation which causes cancer and leukemia. I believe Harry Truman was justified in dropping the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although some may disagree. He saved countless American, Allied, and even Axis power lives based on his decision, gave the allied powers an advantage in the war after forcing Japan out, and "August 6, 1945, day of the bomb: At 3A.M., Navy Captain William S. Parsons squatted in the cramped bomb bay of the specially built B-29, the Enola Gay, and began to tinker with the 10foot-long atomic bomb hanging from a hook in the ceiling like a helpless whale." (Day of the Bomb) By 8:15 A.M. Truman had ordered the drop of "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, a naval base in Japan. Japan had chosen not to intercept this fleet, seeing that it was not more than three aircrafts. Had Truman not decided to drop "Little Boy" on Hiroshima and then a follow-up of "Fat Man" on Nagasaki, we may have experienced many more years of war and death. Although nearly 200,000 Japanese were killed during this explosion and exposure to radiation, many more would have died if we continued to have battles such as the ones in Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. The decision of dropping these bombs was one that required a lot of thought and consideration by Harry Truman. Although it was a tough decision, "Yes, he would drop the bomb on Japan if he had to do it over again. It saved a million lives didn't it?"(Day of the Bomb) Had he not succeeded and forced Japan to surrender and secede from this war, he may have forced them to invest more money into their own nuclear weapons program and manage to eliminate half of the United States due to nuclear explosions. Truman was justified in his decision, and he managed to force Japan out, and the end of the war was near. Many people view Harry Truman as either one of the top presidents or one of the worst based on his decision on this matter. He made the right decision and many of us could not handle the decision that he had to make on this subject. Based on his decision he saved countless lives, and ended the war. After bombing Japan the 2nd time at the Nagasaki naval base, Japan was forced to surrender. This gave the Allied powers an advantage in the war, because with Japan out less supplies could get to such countries as Germany, the result of which could have meant we lost the war. By putting an end to the war he allowed many of the remaining soldiers to return home to their friends and families and regain their lives. In forcing an end to the war with his atomic bomb decision, he allowed many countries to rebuild and refine their armies and industries. This "great war" took a toll on the industries mostly. As more men went to war, more materials and supplies were needed, but as more men went, there were fewer men to supply these necessities, especially at the pace needed. Thus, many countries were running low on supplies. Putting an end to war saved many from starvation, and again saved lives. During war times in order to keep up with many other countries' military strength many of our large businesses, companies, and factories such as General Motors, or GMC, switch over from making what they normally do, such as cars, to making tanks weaponry and ammunition. During these times the United States becomes a manufacturing society. We manage to decrease the price of making weapons, tanks, and ammunition while using our assembly line method of production to make these things faster, and we make these defense goods at a much more efficient rate. Although our defense production goes up, so does the price of the goods these companies usually produce because a large amount of the man power going towards defense, the law of supply and demand. Ending war allowed the United States, and many other countries who share this method of production, to go back to their normal system of production allowing these businesses to begin making money again, changing us back to an industrial society. On this topic Truman's decision was justified and greatly impacted United States and every other country involved in the war. He knew that by bombing these naval bases Japan had no choice but surrender or else they might be bombed again and lose many more lives that previously before. By using the atomic bomb on Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki he made the right decision, and Japan had no choice but to surrender after losing their two largest naval bases. He saved countless more lives that he had taken, for both the allied and axis powers. In addition to ending the war, he allowed all the countries to slow down their supply production for the soldiers and they were not as necessary. Last, he allowed the United States' industries to make what they are specialized in, from making defense goods to cars, clothes, and many other products. Thus, Harry Truman was justified, although many lives may have had to be sacrificed he was left with no other choice, or he may have lost the war and many more soldiers. All that has been said is true, but it's from the viewpoint of "pity the poor innocent Japanese people."The dropping of the atomic bomb was justified - it's a pity there were not more of them. What about the poor people they butchered, killed, murdered, raped, etc etc all throughout the war? They were innocent civilians too.What about them? Doesn't anybody care about how they suffered? Why do you think most of the south east Asian countries invaded by the Japanese detest and hate them to this very day? What about the allied POWs? Most returned POWs felt as much compassion for the Japanese as they felt for their prisoners, and heartedly agreed with the dropping of the atomic bombs, and the only reason for the decreased antipathy towards the Japanese is that most of that particular generation has died. Unlike Germany, Japan has never even reluctantly admitted they were at fault in the war, let alone admit responsibility and say sorry, least of all to ask for forgiveness. The whole country was collectively culpable for the approximately 6 million Asian civilian deaths alone and thus collectively responsible for their due retribution. Plus I do not feel that people should feel any moral outrage at the dropping of the bomb as even greater atrocities examples of human depravity were committed by the Japanese forces in their invasion of China and treatment of war prisoners; for example, in the 'Rape of Nanking' where 300,000 innocent civilians died , and the rapes of small children culminating in the slitting of their throats. Any argument even suggesting that the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was unjustified on moral grounds despite their ownimmoral behaviour, (and that is even even according to the so-called 'rules' of war), is outright hypocrisy, and therefore renders the argument null and void. You cannot use morality to justify immorality. If you live by the sword you must expect to die by the sword.
It depends on your point of view. IF you're asking was it right that the people on the islands of Hiroshima and Nagasaki died as a result of testing the devices - then I'd say no. IF you're asking whether the millions of lives saved as a result of the success of the test bombs justified the sacrifice of the people on the islands, then I'd have to say yes. Without a 'field test' there would have been no way of knowing the extent of devastation the bombs were capable of.

Answer 2

There's a ton of different ways people could think of this. On one hand, yes, we needed to get out of the war with Japan quickly before any more lives were lost. Others believe that they had it coming, as they decided to bomb Pearl Harbor. Yet some people still think that the atomic bomb was too much of a stretch and completely unnecessary to kill so many people.

It should be noted that Operation Olympus The invasion of Japan judging from Okinawa's invasion would have cost several million deaths both Japanese civilians and Allied soldiers The allies could not afford so many deaths. So thank god for the atomic bomb. (P.S. The Japanese had been doing ABomb research but were not so advanced as us. The Allies Backup plan b if the atomic bombs did not work was to poison gas the whole island. Sweet Dreams

Answer 3

By the standards of today, it probably wasn't justified. By the standards of 1945, it almost certainly was. Bombing of civilian targets (like cities) had been forbidden by treaty since well before World War II, but that restriction was routinely broken during the war. The Germans bombed British cities, the Americans and British bombed German cities, and the Americans bombed Japanese cities. Fire-bombing raids using incendiary bombs caused huge casualties in Tokyo and Dresden, almost as many as in the atomic bombings. So the atomic bomb was just a method of continuing the practice of bombing cities, but using only one plane instead of hundreds. Much of this city-bombing was driven by pre-war theories that an enemy could be terrorized into surrender through bombing, a theory which proved generally false. Today, most military leaders are repulsed by the idea of attacking purely civilian targets (certainly American ones are). Aside from the moral issues, they know they will receive horrible press coverage which will ultimately damage their cause, as in Vietnam. There is also a great reluctance for using nuclear weapons due to the dangers of escalation, which wasn't a factor in the decision to use these weapons against Japan.

Answer 4

No it was not justified they only real reason why it was dropped was because the US wanted show Russia it had the Bomb many high ranking military official in particular General MacArthur one of the highest if not the highest ranking soldier in the pacific theater even argued against the use of the bombing. Another reason it was not justified was the fact that the US Navy had already surrounded they island and were bombing the island with conventional weapons also even if they had ceased bombing campaigns and had just surrounded they island letting nothing in or out they still would have won the war because Japan is an Island and needs to import its goods so without resources it would have need to negotiated some sort of truce.

Edit; Of course it WAS. The Japanese had repeatedly declared their intention to fight to the last man woman and child and had demonstrated their resolve in every battle for the previous four years.

The devastating fire-bombing under the direction of le May had had no effect, despite the suffering of the Japanese people. This clearly indicates now, as it did then, that the decisions were out of the hands of the people and that those who were running the war from within Japan, had other intentions which they had been displaying so regularly in the previous 13 years in China, Manchuria, South East Asia and the Pacific.

Macarthur's belated comments about the dropping of the bomb would, without a doubt, have been because it would take his achievements out of the spot-light. Let us not forget that it was Macarthurs intention to use Atomic weapons against the Chinese in North Korea that ushered in his final downfall.

Answer 5

In a 1986 study, historian and journalist Edwin P. Hoyt nailed the "great myth, perpetuated by well-meaning people throughout the world," that "the atomic bomb caused the surrender of Japan." In Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict(p. 420), he explained:

"The fact is that as far as the Japanese militarists were concerned, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of 3,100,000 homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million of them. It was the ruthless firebombing, and Hirohito's realization that if necessary the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day."
In a trenchant new book, The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Praeger, 1996), historian Dennis D. Wainstock concludes that the bombings were not only unnecessary, but were based on a vengeful policy that actually harmed American interests. He writes (pp. 124, 132):
... By April 1945, Japan's leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. They feared that the United States would depose him, try him as a war criminal, or even execute him ... Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge, and it hurt America's national self-interest. It prolonged the war in both Europe and East Asia, and it helped to expand Soviet power in those areas. General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender." General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.

Source: Weber, Mark "Was Hiroshima Necessary? Why the Atomic Bombings could have been avoided" The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 3), pages 4-11.

Answer 6

Yes, absolutely. Then. A situation now would likely be very different though and would depend on circumstances that cannot be anticipated.

Answer 7

Yes - and no ! Yes - because it proved the theory of the development of the device. No - because of the huge loss of life, and subsequent ongoing medical problems it caused !