Probably for the same reasons D-day in Europe wasn't justified... innocent people died.
If you insist on armchair quarterbacking every military decision without all the facts the decision makers of the time had and with facts that have come out since that time that could not have been known by anyone at the time, you will quickly find every action made in every war ever fought to be both not justified and completely immoral.
In the context of the time and given the facts the decisions were based on, both atomic bombings were fully justified and moral actions, as would have been any that followed had Japan not surrendered.
You probably are not aware that the US had already committed 100% to attack Japan with chemical weapons during the invasion in late 1945, if similar resistance was encountered as was seen on the last few islands. Such an attack violated the Geneva Convention and could be declared a war crime. Truman was fully aware that usage of chemical weapons on Japan was planned and could easily have viewed usage of the atomic bomb as the lesser of two evils, especially if its use avoided need for the chemical weapons (which in fact it did). But this fact has been classified Top Secret since the decision was made and was only declassified a few years ago.
I suppose the reason some people would give is because of the number of people killed by its detonation and the resulting radioactive pollution. Obviously its use at the end of WW2 has to be view in the light of what had preceded it, that is the war in the Pacific against Japan by the US & others. Not to justify its use at that time has to suggest another course of action.....
It didn't need to, the bombs were dropped to end the war and to collapse Japan's means to make war ever again.
The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in response to the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor. Soon after they were dropped the war ended. I don't see how it wasn't justified.
No. there is no justification to killing that many innocent people in a war.
He stated the bomb was needed to end the war.
Although using such a devastating weapon is always questioned, I believe the U.S. was justified to use the Atomic Bomb. Even the Japanese citizens were told to fight. By dropping the Atomic bomb, there was potentially less death, since no U.S. soldiers were harmed. The citizens would not have surrendered. Japan was not going to surrender, and so the Atomic bomb saved thousands of American lives, and shortened that terrible war
porket may atomic , bomb agad,
the us created the atomic bomb
no
y333 y333 homie swager
No. there is no justification to killing that many innocent people in a war.
He stated the bomb was needed to end the war.
That is a question of opinion. And my opinion is yes as I truly believe it saved around a million lives.
Not in my opinion.
If you consider the US atomic bomb is a Christian bomb, the French atomic bomb is also Christian bomb and so on, then you can name the Pakistani atomic bomb an Islamic bomb.
how was the atomic bomb repaired
Equally justified, in the eyes of the Allies. They wanted an unconditional surrender; Japan wanted conditions.
The atomic bomb is an artefact, and so an invention. Maybe you meant to ask who invented the atomic bomb ?
Although using such a devastating weapon is always questioned, I believe the U.S. was justified to use the Atomic Bomb. Even the Japanese citizens were told to fight. By dropping the Atomic bomb, there was potentially less death, since no U.S. soldiers were harmed. The citizens would not have surrendered. Japan was not going to surrender, and so the Atomic bomb saved thousands of American lives, and shortened that terrible war
18th May1998, but its not atomic bomb (its nuclear bomb)