Was the united states justified in using the atomic bombs against japan?

Answer 1

Most people think so.
Most of the American people think the bombs were justified.
The age old question. When US troops encountered Japanese resistance in the Pacific islands they were amazed at first and later horrified to realize the extremes the Japanese would go to in battle. Many would fight to the last man and in one instance Japanese civilians literally hurled their children and themselves off of cliffs to avoid capture. They were sure American GI's would rape and plunder women and children. Then our intelligence corps saw that women and children were being trained to fight off an American invasion with brromsticks and household items. The powers that were determined that any normal invasion of Japan would cost thousands of Us casualties and probably tens of thousands of Japanese men, women and children. Truman decided to use the "BOMB" to convince Japan they couldn't win. It was horrible and killed thousands but probably not as many as an invasion would have caused. Now the decision is up to you. Were they justified in using the bomb? I think so but you may disagree.
I suppose you are thinking of the atomic bomb. In fact, there were two bombs - one was dropped at Japanese city of Hiroshima, the other one was dropped at the city of Nagasaki. Dropping those bombs was never officially justified. There are two unofficial justifications:

1.) Americans, being themselves at the time (no offense), did not care for the casualties of the enemy, but their own. They wanted that war over with the surrender (in further text capitulation) of Germany, but Japan didn't capitulate . Americans didn't like it, so by the act of dropping the bombs, they wanted to scare the Japanese with the enormous power of the atomic bombs and casualties that they make both before and after the strike so they would scare them and force them to capitulate. They succeeded. Japanese capitulated in August 28, 1945. The bombs were dropped on 3rd and 9th August of the same year. 4 days after the capitulation, WWII ended. However, saving their own people doesn't justify their actions for the losses of the enemy and permanent damage done to a part of humanity (by the bombs of course).

2.) Cynics say that is was a retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I hope my English was good enough and that this is what you were looking for.

Edit; It is not correct to judge such a question in retrospect. In light of the World War that had been raging for so long and with such ferocity, the dropping of the bomb was totally justified in light of such recent experience. I recall being told that "they've dropped a big bomb" and asking frantically, "WHO has?" The relief was considerable to be told it was NOT the Japanese.

The Japanese had been giving every indication since Kokada and Milne Bay in New Guinea from early 1942, that surrender was never a possibility. Every subsequent encounter reinforced this impression. Milne bay was the first defeat the Japanese suffered and at the hands of Australian troops. The Emperor should have been hanged.
well strategically yeah, i think so but you really cant way peoples lives so its up for debate

Answer 2

If you refer to the atomic bombs, that is still debated. Some think it saved American lives. Some think the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway. Some say it was a demonstration for the Soviets and the Chinese. If it was it didn't work. The Chinese and the Russians increased their efforts to get bombs of their own.

And now who knows exactly which nutjob dictators have H-bombs? Israel alone has hundreds at least, maybe thousands.

Answer 3

To discuss the application of the word "justified" you must first identify the the circumstances you want to justify:

• If you mean was the bombing needed to end he war with Japan - probably not as the Japanese were ready to talk surrender.
  
• If you mean as a PR effort to convince Russia that the US had lots of atomic bombs and was willing to use them regardless of how many innocent civilians were killed. Maybe not as it inspired the Russians to use their captured German scientists to develop their own bombs.
  
• If you mean is the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and destroying two cities ever justified probably not. Britain still agonizes over the destruction of Dresden in a similar manner with conventional bombs.

Answer 4

Yes, it was totally justified and saved the potential deaths of thousands of Allied servicemen ( mostly US Marines) who would have otherwise invaded there.

Answer 5

President Truman stated that he needed to end the war and collapse Japan's means to make war ever again and most people think he did the right decision.

Answer 6

Self defense is almost always justified.