Was the U.S. justified in dropping the Atomic bomb on Japan? Yes or No? Why?
Have you any idea how many times per day this question is asked? Yes: it brought the war to an immediate end, saved lives that would have been lost in a land invasion, and proved American strength on the world stage. No: the bombs were dropped on civilian targets, the war was already lost for Japan, nukes are bad, blah blah blah. It's easy for people to criticize the use of the bomb 60+ years after the fact, but I can't imagine anyone in 1945 opposing a swift end to a brutal war.
Was the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan justified?
if there's a girl with the account L:ucyLow telling you not to comment DONT LISTEN TO HERR! im debating against her :) and she's trying to get me to lose
Was United States justified for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan?
The laymans answer is the purpose of dropping the bomb was basic fear mongering. The United States wanted to do a lot of damage and scare the Japanese government into surrender. Hence why they didn't bomb Tokyo where the government was, since that would kill everyone who could offer a legitament surrender. If its justified or not is debatable. Obviously the loss of life is never really justifiable. Furthermore its been argued that it was the much sought after Russian army's impending arrival that actually spurred the surrender, not the bombing. That or that Japan was already ready to sue for peace and the bombings were unneccesary. On the other hand fighting the Japanese coventionally to the bitter end would have cost lives as well. That and the long term effects of the bomb wern't fully known. In the broader emphasis both sides were responsible for starting the war and as with any conflict their was no real good guys or bad guys to cheer for. So basically its convoluted.
Three Reasons Why Dropping The Atomic Bombs Was Justified?
1. We warned them numerous times and each time they just laughed 2. It was either that or directly invading Japan and the surrounding islands. The number of direct casualties would've been at least twice as much as the number of direct casulaties from the bombings 3. I don't have a third reason because the aftermath of the bombings was largely negative.
Was u.s. justified in dropping atomic bombs on japanese?
Yes. It is estimated that at least 1 million Allied lives would have been saved by using the bombs to end the war. (In these estimations the enemy's losses are not considered relevant - Japan had declared war on the Western Allies and would have to accept the consequences of 'Total war'). Given how long it had taken to take Okinawa and Iwo Jima it was fairly evident that it would have taken about a year of heavy fighting with considerable losses to take the mainland. But the Allies could not afford to delay - people were dying in prison camps under the Japanese in occupied Asia so it was imperative that the war was ended quickly. As it is not in the Japanese culture to accept surrender there was plenty of indications that they would fight on. Even after Hiroshima they still did bot surrenderwhich is why the second bomb was dropped. There are a couple of other compelling reasons - although not really justifications. congress had spent something like the equivalent of $US 25 billion on the Manhattan Project and wanted to see some results. With an eye to the post war landscape the US wanted to demonstrate to the USSR (who entered the war with Japan the day after Hiroshima) who would have supremacy. (This was short-lived as within a decade, the Rosenbergs had betrayed the secrets of the bomb to the Russians).
Why did America drop the atomic bomb on Japan?
To show the Russians whose the boss. They say the atomic bombs were used to end the war. I think the American military generals would disagree with you, and surely they knew more about the situation than any of us: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet "The use of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman "I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower "Prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - Paul Nitze, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey They say the atomic bombs were revenge for Pearl Harbour and the Bataan Death March etc - but the Americans already took their revenge on the Japanese by mutilating dead Japanese soldiers - cutting off ears and teeth to keep as war trophies, cutting off the heads of Japanese soldiers to put on tank gun turrents, and sending Japanese skulls to their girlfriends back home. "U.S. troops who mutilated the bodies of their Japanese opponents were also motivated by a desire to seek revenge against Japanese atrocities, such as the Bataan Death March." - Eric Bergerud So yeah the bombings were justified in making the US look like the worlds sole superpower until 1949 when the Soviets detonated their first nuke, to make things square. The atomic bombings served nothing but create a nuclear arms race.