who picked yes?

I admit that the bombings were horrible. But they did end WWII, so...

haha i was just about ot askt his question since we had a debate in our class about this.

Of course, they were horrible. They killed thousands of people. The people of Japan didn't deserve it. Almost all of those people didn't deserve to go through all that horror. But Japan was the one who bombed us. Their government ran out of resources and they decided to attack us. The war was going on for years and it seemed like it was never going to end. And if we didn't bomb them, we would have lost even more lives not just on our side, but on Japan's military also. The world just couldn't take it if we went even longer. The cost of damages would have gone up and us at home would have even more shortages. In my opinion it was for the greater good.
Truman even warned the Japaneese that they were going to bomb them and they needed to evacuate. It's not like Truman was also pressured.

The thing is, one can never really determine how many lives are saved by a certain action versus the lives lost. It all winds down to Machiavellian principals. Do the ends really justify the means? Do the thousands of innocent of civilian lives lost as a result of the bombs really equal the lives saved? There is no way to really know for sure of the numbers, just as there's no way to know how much longer the war would have gone on without the bombing. And why bomb cities? Why not military bases? Why twice?

The man who flew the Enola Gay died this week and he expressed no regret for the role he played in what happened. He said that: "I'm not proud that I killed 80,000 people, but I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it, and have it work as perfectly as it did."

Truman had a very, very difficult decision to make. I've been deliberating on this issue for a long time. It's a really hard decision for me to make. Obviously Truman took a page out of Machiavelli's book. For him, there was no other way, one could assume.

I haven't the time at the moment to find the links to support it, but this is a case of America having rewritten history. Japan had already surrendered when we bombed them.

I was actually talking about this today in class. I feel 2 ways about this. In one way, The bombs were good because they ended the war, because the truth is that the Japanese would never consider surrendering because it is considered a cowardly act. In fact war veterens say that if a Japanese solder was surronded by 8 American Solders, with no bullets in his gun, he would rather try to stab his way out, than surrender. So the Japanese weren't going to surrender unless something big happened

On the other hand, The bombs were bad because they were used to attack citizens who were not even involved in the war. They were senseless deaths by the American troops just to instable fear in the Japanese army to force them to surrender. Also, The bombs changed warfair for the worst. With the technology today, you could probably blow up a large city like New York in one blow.
On one hand it brought American troops home, but at the cost the lives of thousands of innocent Japanese who's only crime was trying to live their lives.

No - the destruction of so many lives can never be justified, especially considering that those were innocent lives that were destroyed. In any case - the war was nearly over. Wasn't Japan extremely close to surrendering before the bombs anyway?

History is always written-- and rewritten-- by the winners, Doctor D. That's just how things are.

I, also, was just looking to see if this question was added because we are doing debates in our Social Studies class about this topic.

They had bombed pearl Harbor first, basicaly to get a jump on us. Doing that, they started a war. And, the US government did almost everything they could to NOT drop the bombs, but in the end, it came down to either Japan or the US. Of course, they chose the US. Now, many civilion lives were lost, but after the bombing, the US did help rebuild the country. I'm not saying that makes it okay, but the only other option the end this war was to send a million or more of US military over to Japan and fight. That still would have cost many lives of Japan's people's lives, as well as our own. And, since we are studing Japanese culture, we have learned that Japan's culture is to never surrend or give up. This made them an extremley hard country to fight, so sending bombs over was the overal best choice. If we hadn't we would have had to attack them or they would have eventually attacked us.

Not that soldiers lives are less important than civilian lives, but seriously, I've always taken issue with the fact that they targeted cities. I know it was so it was a greater impact, but in my opinion that was just... *shivers.* If Iraq had WMDs for example and bombed our cities because we invaded them, it would be called "the action of a terrorist state."

FYI, the bombings were, by definition, an act of terrorism, as their main point was to inspire fear in the nation which it struck. That's actually why two major cities were chosen instead of military targets, because they seriously wanted to inflict severe psychological trauma on the Japanese nation. In fact, that's also why Kyoto wasn't chosen as a target, because its "more intellectual" citizens would be able to better understand the significance of the bombing.

Again, this is a topic I've thought a lot about. And again, while I don't feel they were justified, I just can't find myself condemning Truman because, well, damn, if I was in his shoes, I do not know what I would have done. But I've seen photographs of what the bombs did to the cities, and one stands out in my mind that I saw at the Smithosian a few years ago of a woman showing her burned back with the blistered skin. A child's corpse mangled with his bike. It's highly disturbing that 80,000 people had to die in order to end a war. I feel like there had to be other options. But as DrDevience pointed out, history is always written by the winners. And hindsight is twenty/twenty.

Is this microphone on?

Japan had already surrendered when we bombed them. It is a matter of public record. The schools are teaching a lie to cover up the fact that we bombed two cities out of retribution that did not need to be bombed. It was over.

I really can't believe that some people actually think the bombing was justified! My mouth litteraly dropped when I read some of the posts here.

If you were taught at school that the bombs ended the war, well, the thought actually scares me, because that would mean that apparently some schools don't tell the full truth to their students. And that is frightning.

As Cinders said the bombing was a act of terrorism. Japan did already surrender. And they wanted,(again,) as Cinders said, to 'inflict some severe psychological trauma'. But other than that, the bombs were also dropped because they wanted to know what would happen.
Nuclear weapons were only just discovered, and had never been used before. The two bombs were different types of nuclear weapons. They just wanted to know what kind of damage they would do.

Another point on why the bombs weren't justified is that if they DID drop the bombs to try and stop the war, why this way? There are so many other ways to bring that fear to Japan. Seeing as Japan was standing on the edge of giving in, I think they could've done loads of things to make them surrender.

Even if you could explain away the mistake of dropping the bombs, you could never say they were justified. I don't know if you'll know what a nuclear bomb does, but the effects it has are outright terrible. Your skin gets bubbles, body parts can fall of, grow all of a sudden, or do other weird things. It isn't like a virus, that you can put in quarantine, this goes into your body, under your skin. And the few people that didn't burn alive because of the bomb itself were basically doomed. Pregnant women had deformed children for years. 50, 60 years later people still get cancer because of it.
Now i get that, as a country, you'd feel some guilt, and maybe even would want to gloss over it and forget about it. But something that creates the terrors that this has cost is inexcusable and certainly injustified.

they did a studying say that if they let the war continue, there would be more dead bodies than dropping the 2 bombs...ill look it up later

of course there are studies saying the death toll would have been higher if they hadn't dropped the bombs. this is precisely what Cinders and DrDevience mean about the winner writing (or re-writing, as the case may be) history. it's the same reason Japanese students don't learn about the atrocities committed by their nation during the war. government censorship is nothing new.
the point about terrorism is interesting. we recently had a similar discussion in my Globalization tutorial - is state-sponsored violence synonymous with terrorism? hmm.. i think a new pick is about to be posted :P

It basically ended the war. I don't like the killing but had the war be allowed to continue the toll would have been higher.

Miss_Sigma, it's always a good idea to read the comments already left before posting something.

LOL, bliss!

I need to read up on this subject more, because I want to know more about what exactly was going on behind closed doors with Truman, and Japan, and everything. I doubt it was as clearcut as "They were going to surrender, but we just felt like bombing them anyway."

What I do know is that the mindset of the times was "We've got to crush them completely or they won't surrender; they're fanatics. We have to get as high a body-count as possible. These people don't surrender even when they're completely beaten, so we've just got to destroy them completely." This had been their experience in the past; Japanese would fight a battle even when they knew they would lose, and they'd fight to the death or kill themselves rather than surrender. So this is why the Americans chose civilian targets, and why they bombed twice instead of just once. To destroy the moral as much as possible, and make them surrender.

The above paragraph explains, but does not justify, the bombings. It is despicable whenever civilians are targeted and killed. So I pick no.

My grandfather was stationed in the Phillipeans when it happened. If Truman did not drop the bombs, my grandfather would have been one of the ones to invade Japan and be slaughered. My mother, nor subsequently I, would have never been born.

I simply can't find a way to justify it. That many civilian lives? No, it wasn't necessary.
My most hated argument on this point is 'they bombed us first'. What is this? Primary school? If you're over the age of 7 you can no longer justify actions by saying that someone else started it. I don't believe that unnecessary deaths can be remedied by more unnecessary deaths.
One of my favourite quotes is from Ghandi; 'An eye for an eye makes the world blind'.

it stopped millions of lives by getting rid of the need for an invasion on both sides

Japan was done for when the bombs were dropped. It wasn't done to force a surrender, but to make threatening motions toward the Russians. They could have dropped the bombs in the ocean outside Hirohito's palace if they just wanted to finish the war with Japan. As for the Japanese starting the war, that's actually an oversimplification considering what was going on before the war. The U.S. had a conflict with Japan already and they interfered with Japan's invasion of China. Japan's attack on the U.S. wasn't as unprovoked as the victors like to think. Not that Japan wasn't hostile, just that it's a bit more complicated than "they bombed us first".

Just promise you won't take their freaking emperor. Christ.

When i first heard of the bombing, I had NO idea it was USA who did it. I had read in school this true story about this Japanese girl in 1950 who got leukemia because of the bomb and tried to make a 1000 paper cranes to make a wish to stay alive. She died in the end without finishing all the cranes. It was the first sad story and I never forgot it. It made me realize it doesnt matter who you are or what you do, cause bad things happen to anybody, even a innocent girl like myself (at the time) could be killed just like that for no reason. When I found out that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was dropped by US, it was the first time I questioned whether US was as great people think it is.

US has done some messed up stuff in the past, and this was one of the things

I just... can't justify killing that many innocent people. Yes, the three-thousand (ish) soldiers that died was tragic. Appalling. It shouldn't have happened. But killing almost 100,000 people in retaliation wasn't the way to go. Especially since, as it's been mentioned, Japan had surrendered.

But I disagree with nuclier bombs. We did a huge project on this in school. So the bombing was justified, just not the type of bombs.

For all you that said no, Imagine that you were or someone in pearl harbor and lets say 4 or 5 of your friends died in the bombing how mad or sad would you be. We shot some of them but not all now you want them to pay. so the government said that OK lets get stated on a bomb to get revenge on the Japanese for bombing us. would you hit that button to get revenge not just for your friend but for every one the hurt. Families now torn, kid without their father, widows, your comrades. Even tho they surrendered they would do it again.

^My great-grandfather was actually AT Pearl Harbor while it was bombed. He lost friends in that bombing. He almost died himself.
And he was against the way Hiroshima and Nagasaki were handled.

For all you that said no, Imagine that you were or someone in pearl harbor and lets say 4 or 5 of your friends died in the bombing how mad or sad would you be. We shot some of them but not all now you want them to pay. so the government said that OK lets get stated on a bomb to get revenge on the Japanese for bombing us. would you hit that button to get revenge not just for your friend but for every one the hurt. Families now torn, kid without their father, widows, your comrades. Even tho they surrendered they would do it again.

Since when is vengeance the same thing as justice? Every superhero tome I've ever read has preached the opposite. The most obvious example in recent superhero pop culture being Harvey Dent - "You either die the hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Vengeance is not righteous, and vengeance will not make it better. It's wicked, and it makes things worse.

"We shot some of them but not all" - bold added for emphasis. What is it about our need as human beings to identify so steadfastly as a group to extend that to excluding all others? What is it about us that forces us to think in "us and them" dichotomies? Everyone does it, of every nationality, race, religion and philosophy. But it's an obstacle. In what world would you WANT to kill "all" of them? Isn't that genocide by it's very definition? We need to remember we are all the same thing - human.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

"i do not know how bad a life has to break in order to kill.
i have never been so hungry that i willed hunger
i have never been so angry as to want to control a gun over a pen.
not really.
even as a woman, as a palestinian, as a broken human being.
never this broken." - Suheir Hammad, link

So my explanation isn't a straightforward "no," but I'll explain.

To start, Japan was not in great shape by the time we launched these nukes. They had run out of allies (Germany surrendered months earlier), their battles in Southeast Asia and China were quickly becoming wars against guerrilla armies, and they were running far short on resources. By that point, they had lost a number of major battles in the Pacific, retaining few (if any) of the all too valuable aircraft carriers, especially after Midway. Japan constantly wanted to end the war earlier, not because of the death toll, but because every single power they were fighting had better access to more resources. When they conquered Manchuria in China, they finally had the resources they needed, but China made holding them absolute hell. Despite a staunch willingness to keep fighting, Japan was sinking, and the Emperor knew it. Admittedly, the Emperor didn't have the power to end the war himself, mainly because the military had taken control over the apparatus of government, but by this point he was steadily gaining back power, and was trying to engage in talks with the U.S.

That being said, I believe the first bomb was necessary. The military was loathe to give up their position of leadership, and with a fanatical population to back them, it would have been difficult for him to get any sort of traction without something to temper the rising emotions. Many said they would fight to the very last person (including women and children) in order to win the war, something that wouldn't have won it for them should we have engaged, but would have cost many lives on both sides. We did have military actions against them on various islands, which can act as examples. Okinawa is probably the best, where it is estimated that the Allies lost over 80,000 and the Japanese over 100,000. There's little doubt that we would have faced similar battles should the war have been more protracted. It could be argued that dropping the bomb in a less populated area could have led to a similar result, but looking at the dangers surrounding this, I think the U.S. saw hitting a major city as necessary to shake the Japanese enough to force a surrender. Merely showing power wasn't sufficient to change hearts and minds.

But remember, I said only the first atomic bomb. The second, dropped on Nagasaki, was a very different story, for a number of reasons. First, the Emperor had gained a lot of control back after the first was dropped. The fear that spread through the population and the military following Hiroshima's devastation was enough to give him some authority to stand on, and in the process, to have him begin sending out feelers to the U.S. about negotiations. Second, the U.S. actually received these feelers, and said no. The reason? When they were offered surrender terms, the U.S. said they would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. Why? Because they were nervous that following any surrender terms, the Soviet Union would take control of Japan. It was a reasonable thought, but that desire to get in before the Soviets cost the lives of so many in Nagasaki. If we had accepted conditional surrender when it was offered to us, the war would have ended slightly earlier and with much less loss of life, and the only harm would have been a possible turf scuffle with the Soviet Union, which we basically had during the Cold War anyway.

I wonder how many people don't realize that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't bombed until four years after the attack on Pearl Harbor. I remember learning about it in history class, and the way it was taught made it seem as if we went after Japan very quickly after Pear Harbor. From that (false) perspective, it's very easy to say both bombs should have been dropped, and very easy to get outraged at those who disagree.

Yeah, it seems that a lot of people have a skewed view of the timeline involved.

To a degree, after all, they did bomb Pearl Harbor. But Hiroshima and Nagasaki were primarily just places for ordinary people, where as Pearl Harbor was a militia base. And Japan still has people suffering today because of this.