|Reviews for Atomic Bomb Justification|
| Guest chapter 1 . 3/18
you are the most evil person i have ever seen in my life
| minecraftmaya99 chapter 1 . 2/5
Japan already killed over 2,000 people in the Pearl Harbor bombings. We had done nothing to provoke them, unless you count our cutting off trade with Japan, limiting their oil supply. That was also reasonable, as they were rapidly conquering the Indian Ocean and wanted to take the Pacific too.
In addition, this was nearing the end of WWII. Hitler and Germany were already out of the picture, but Japan was still strong, holding several hundred islands in the Indian Ocean. We moved to take out Japan by defeating the Japanese on several islands, but because of their kamikazes, we took heavy casualties, and the Japanese lost far less men than we did. A full-scale invasion of Japan would have cost thousands upon thousands of American lives, and that was simply unacceptable! Dropping the atomic bombs saved American lives and crippled the Japanese from attacking us, thus effectively ending WWII in the Pacific Ocean.
The U.S. was definitely justified in dropping the atomic bomb, because Japan killed a lot of people in the attack on Pearl Harbor. I think that was totally uncalled for them to bomb us. They learned their lesson in fighting us and they learned for future reference not to attack us or fight with us again.
It was either drop the bombs, kill a few thousand people or not drops the bomb, the war lingers on and more people die than the bombs killed. WW2 had to stop and this made it happen. Neither country could afford any more warring on the other, this was a costly expense. True we killed innocent people, but if we didn't more would have died at the hands of the Japanese and of the Americans. The bombs not only made sense, they saved lives. Despite taking some.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor when we had done nothing to provoke them, there were also innocent children in Pearl Harbor and it is an eye for an eye. Besides, it is not like the people who died from the explosion weren't warned a luxury we were not given. The US was completely justified.
Source : "RICHARD RHODES is the author or editor of twenty-four books including The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which won a Pulitzer Prize in Nonfiction, a National Book Award and a National Book Critics Circle Award"
Think of all the people who would have died had the U.S. not dropped the bombs. Otherwise, the Japanese would have attacked the U.S., causing many deaths for both them and for us. The Japanese did not want to surrender, and made sure that everyone knew that, but continued to plan massive disregard the warnings which we gave them of the impending bombing.
The atomic bomb on Hiroshima was brutal, yes. On the other hand, it was the only way to stop the war. Japan was going to invade the U.S. and we were running out of supplies, people, guns, bullets, etc. It was either the bomb or loses the war.
1 million men were estimated to have been killed in a full scale invasion of Japan. Those men would be someone's son. Someone's brothers and sisters. Someone's husband .The atomic bomb would definitely end the war. Try to explain the fact you had something that would end the war to the 1,000,000 men’s' loved ones but their son, brother, or husband had to die. 100,000 civilian casualties didn't come anywhere near the amount of casualties there would have been in a full scale invasion of the country, and that's without including the number of Japanese that would have been killed and civilians. It also doesn't come anywhere near the amount of civilians murdered in the Holocaust.
The atomic bomb was necessary to end the war with Japan at the earliest possible moment. By the early summer of 1945, Japanese leaders knew they could not win. But they fought on in hopes of securing better surrender terms.
President Harry S. Truman considered several ways to convince Japan to quit the war: 1) intensifying the already heavy bombing of Japanese cities; 2) waiting for the Soviet Union, an ally in defeating Germany, to join the war against Japan; 3) allowing Japan's emperor, Hirohito, to remain on his throne; and 4) invading Japan.
The first three options were far from certain to compel Japanese surrender quickly, however, and each posed serious military, political, and diplomatic risks. More than 55,000 Americans had already died fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. An invasion was certain to be very costly in American lives.
When the atomic bomb became available in July 1945, it appeared to be the most promising way to end the war as soon as possible and without the drawbacks of the alternatives.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and then Nagasaki persuaded Emperor Hirohito, who had wavered for weeks that the war must end immediately. Combined with the Soviet entry into the conflict, the atom bombs brought about Japan's surrender within a few days.
The bomb was necessary to accomplish Truman's primary objectives of forcing a prompt Japanese surrender and saving American lives, perhaps thousands of them.
The war in the Pacific had been raging for almost four years. The two battles immediately preceding the bomb decision were Iwo Jima and Okinawa, two battles where the Japanese fought to the death and the cost in American casualties was horrific. It was predicted that the invasion of the Japanese mainland at the Island of Kyushu - scheduled for November of 1945 - would be even worse. The entire Japanese military and civilian population would fight to the death. American casualties - just for that initial invasion to get a foothold on the island of Japan would have taken up to an estimated two months and would have resulted in up to 75,000 to 100,000 casualties - up to 20,000 dead! And that was just the beginning. Once the island of Kyushu was captured by U.S. troops, the remainder of Japan would follow. You can just imagine the cost in injuries and lives this would take.
Estimated US casualties for Operation OLYMPIC & CORONET were 250,000 along with 1,000,000 Japanese civilian casualties. In the parlance of the young, "this is a no-brainer."
It is not beyond the possibility that a million or more Americans could have been killed had we landed. The Japanese had correctly guessed where we intended to land, and were ready and waiting for us. The casualties would have been high. One American tanker walked around the area he was to have assaulted had we landed. According to him most of the "roads" marked on his map were not roads, but simply foot paths. He felt that tanks would have played a very small part in the fighting. It would have been more fighting against caves, and suicide attacks.
The bomb was dropped with a desire to SAVE LIVES. It is a matter of math. How many Americans lost their lives fighting how many Japanese at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa? The mathematical formula showed the closer we got to Japan the more we lost. Next, one must calculate how many Japanese military people were still in Japan. Add to that figure the fact that women were being trained to fight. Before you say the women would not fight please remember that many women on Okinawa committed suicide fearing all the stories they were told about what the Americans would do to them if they surrendered.
Perhaps your grandfathers were among the 18-26 year old American GI's who had managed to survive the war in Europe. If so, on August 6, 1945, they were with approximately a million other boys on the way to the Pacific. At least 50-80% of them were expected to die in the invasion of the Japanese home islands. Since most of these young men were not yet married, your grandfathers had not yet married your grandmothers, so if they did not come back, then your parents would never be born and therefore you would not be here to second-guess historical decisions.
People can argue all they want about what the true U.S. government estimates of U.S. casualties in an invasion of Japan were. It doesn't matter. I can guarantee you that 99.9% of the soldiers, sailors and airmen involved in the actual combat, or training for the upcoming invasion were convinced that the invasion of Japan would be a bloodbath. I have never heard or read of any American military person who was involved in the late stages of fighting in the war with Japan who was not glad that the atomic bombs were dropped to end the war.
Japanese civilians died
Yes, war is war, and death in war is redundant, you must realize, and that death in war is only legal if it is military death and not civilian death; unless the civilians pick up arms and fight back (then in that case they would be considered combatants).
To say that the U.S. was justified in dropping the bombs, one would have to believe the maxim "the end justifies the means."
Bombs in general should seldom be used especially those of this magnitude.
Fewer Japanese civilians died
The largest number of people killed in a single B-29 raid was not at Hiroshima, but at Tokyo, with conventional firebombs. Some 80,000-100, 00 people killed. The problem was that even with the savage firebombing, the pathetic idiot military elite that was in charge of Japan DIDN'T CARE! They didn't care how much suffering their people had to endure. Surrender was NOT going to happen! Real men, real samurai NEVER SURRENDER! The voices of reason calling for surrender, for beginning negotiations with America were shouted down. Thus, more than anything else, the atomic bomb gave Emperor Hirohito the "face-saving" boost that he needed to tell these idiots that the time had come for Japan to surrender. It was one thing to surrender in the face of battle against an enemy with conventional bombs and weapons. It was another thing to face the seemingly supernatural force of atomic weapons. No matter that the atomic bombs actually killed fewer Japanese per city and were thus LESS EFFECTIVE than conventional firebombs. No, atomic weapons were a supernatural force that the Americans now controlled and so this was a good reason to stop fighting finally.
| Natasha chapter 1 . 1/7
Are you then saying that American lives are of more value than Japanese? And if so you believe that America should kill anyone they are placed in conflict in? I understand that America lost many men in the pacific during the war but so did every country, that is the reality of war. I am not condoning what Japan I believe they were wrong I only question the way the war was won. By saying the dropping of the bomb was justified, it makes killing civilians alright, it also would then have to say that any other group who has a civilian target, if at war would be allowed to kill them if it meant saving their own troops. Everyone has "a family back home".
| will mountford chapter 1 . 6/26/2013
this was rubbish its all lies america are lying assholes
| Kather chapter 1 . 6/20/2013
ITS pure shit bru
| Mike Hawk chapter 1 . 5/14/2013
it was good. keep up the good work mah homie yo doggy dog.
| Guest chapter 1 . 5/9/2013
| Guest chapter 1 . 1/8/2013
a bibliography would be greatly appreciated
| Anonymous chapter 1 . 12/12/2012
Wow. Look at all those people in the comments missing the point. Before I talk about this, allow me to address your other reviewers.
"So, abortion is bad, but atomic bombs aren't?"
Irrelevant. One is an act of war, one is not. This is not a suitable argument.
"Innocents were killed!"
As they would have been had the bombs not been dropped. Know how many people were killed in the bombings? About 200,000. Know how many would have died from a full-scale, D-Day style invasion? Millions. Including civilians. And let's not forget, of course, that we're speaking about the Imperial Army here-the very same army who, before being bombed, was mass-producing terrible firearms and issuing them to civilians. The Japanese were taught-and this is important-to NEVER surrender. No matter who you were, it was more honorable to fight and die for the emperor than to surrender. If the Allies had invaded Japan in a naval invasion, it would have been a bloodbath. Fixed machine guns and artillery would have shredded any troops storming the beaches. The thick jungles would have given the Japanese excellent points for sniping, bayonet charges, and ambushes. And, once they reached the city, there would have not only been the rest of the Imperial Army and whatever resources they could scrounge up to deal with, but armed civilians as well. Really it boils down to this; do you like less death or more? If you like less, then the bomb is clearly justified. If you like more, then you obviously are either messed up in the head, or need to learn more about military tactics, Japanese history (especially religious beliefs and military history), and history in general.
Japan wasn't communist.
Also, I hate to be "that guy", but WW2 never officially ended, as Russia and Japan were supposed to negotiate borders and territory before declaring their conflicts over, and never did.
For the record, I don't agree with the statement that the bomb was used as a revenge weapon-Truman had ordered Japanese rice crops and cities firebombed before, and continually asked for an unconditional Japanese surrender. When they refused, he dropped the first bomb. When they still refused, he dropped a second. It was either the bombs or an invasion, and Truman made the only decision he could have in that position; end the war as fast and with as little bloodshed as possible. In dropping the bomb, he did just that.
| XIV.Xion chapter 1 . 10/12/2012
Okay, I just finished reading your other essay on abortion, and, after reading this one, I must admit that you have confused me. You think that the killing of an unborn fetus is morally wrong, but when it comes to bombing people who attacked the U.S., you're okay with that? Besides, if you think that it was okay to drop not one, but TWO ATOMIC BOMBS on Japan because it avenged those killed at Pearl Harbor, wouldn't Japan have been justified if they had chosen to bomb us back? The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed thousands of people, many of them civilians. People who had never bombed anyone. Innocent children were killed. Mothers and pregnant women were killed. And many suffered radiation sickness. I am proud to be an American, but that does NOT mean that I am in any way proud of what Americans have done in the past. How can you justify killing thousands of innocent people? What happened at Pearl Harbor was devastating, but so was what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have to ask myself whether anyone really won the war.
| not logged in chapter 1 . 10/6/2012
There are a few technical issues with this essay. In the very first sentence you wrote the word "American" where it should be "America." In the second sentence, the word "military" does not have to be capitalized. The same goes for "atomic bombs" in the following sentence. The second time you write a name of something (i.e. 'Little Boy', 'Manhattan Project'), you do not need to write quotes. A major problem is the sentence, "Robert was a Jewish German ... the NAZI, AKA the national socialist." You should not refer to Dr. Oppenheimer by his first name. He is not your friend; you do not know him personally. Second, "Nazi" and "a.k.a." should not be in all caps. Finally, instead of "the national socialist," which would refer to one person, you should write "the National Socialist Party" or maybe even "the National Socialist German Workers' Party."
Also, the atomic bombs were not dropped to get revenge for the Pearl Harbor attack. The goal was to swiftly end the war. The attacks were used in an attempt to push Japan to surrender.
Japan was not a communist nation in the 1940s. It never has been.
Even if you are an American citizen now, you were not one during World War II. Do not include yourself when referring to actions by the U.S. For example, your sentence, "We could have been weakened in the sense of that our military could have been reduced drastically," is not accurate because you, having not even been born, would not have been "weakened" in any way.
You need to understand that it is not considered glorious to have dropped the atomic bombs. There were many civilian casualties in the attacks, and many who did not die immediately or soon after the attacks suffered from radiation-related maladies such as cancer.
Finally, make sure to check your grammar. Some sentences begin with one type of grammar structure but then end with another. This will confuse readers.
| cd11 chapter 1 . 10/4/2012
It was a hard choice fro Truman to make. But it was the right one. If the Good lord is willing. No leader will ever have to make it again.
| Robert Orville Berkshire chapter 1 . 9/28/2012
You support killing thousands of people with atomic bombs, yet don't support abortion.