Was the atom bomb on japan justified?
i used to think it was not justified by any means but i have matured since i was 15. after reading about the horrors they commited in china, im swaying to that it was justified and they deserved it and more but im still not entirely sure
Was the atomic bomb justified?
personally i think of two separate questions when I consider the bombings1)Was the use of the atomic bombs on Japan justified? Yes, I believe they were, it was the fastest way to end the war while saving the most lives and as for humanitarian purposes it was no worse than other things that harmed and mutilated civilians during the second world war. Torture is torture and i don't believe that you can claim as a fact being burned alive or having your throat cut or being left to bleed out after having a limb blown off by a mine or bomb isn't or is “as bad” as any effects caused by a nuclear blast. The next big question is:2)Were the use of the nuclear bombs on the Cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified? My personal answer to that question and opinion is No. First reason being, both bombings took place in cities where there were little to no valuable military targets (compared to other target choices.) There is good indication that the cities were chosen for two reasons, one,both cities had high civilian populations and two , both cities had been (to my understanding) relatively un touched by the bombing raids on japan. This means that there was a good chance those cities were chosen for research and study purposes. What would be the point of bombing a city that had already been leveled? rumors state that the bombs leveled 95–98% of every building in the city and from this photo I can see that those figures are pretty accurate.the scientists and government probably wanted to see the full effects of the bomb on a fully functioning city with high populations so the bombings were used more for experimental research which to me seems a little unethical. And we did indeed send scientists to document the effects of the bombs. higher population meant that there was more study material to gather from both the large number of dead and the large number of injured survivors. Chances are the usa saw the future of nuclear weapons to be a threat and needed to gather results to study how to better protect or deal with nuclear attacks in our own near future. this is all of course my best guess presented with the evidence that the bombings coincidentally targeted cities that were not damaged and had some of the highest populations in japan at the time.
Was Truman justified using the atomic bomb?
It took two of them to force Japan to surrender. Further pressure was even applied after the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9. The B-29 firebombing raids were restarted until the surrender.the following is from Atomic Heritage Foundation timeline Ending the War at Atomic TimelineAugust 10, 1945 Japanese civilian and military leaders are still unable to agree on accepting the Potsdam Declaration's surrender terms. Emperor Hirohito instead breaks the tradition of imperial non-intervention in government and orders that surrender be accepted, provided that the Emperor be allowed to retain his position. General Groves reports that the second plutonium core would be ready for shipment on August 12 or 13, with a bombing possible on August 17 or 18. President Truman orders a halt to further atomic bombing until further orders are issued1945 Aug 11 President Truman and Secretary of State Byrnes reply with an amended form of the Potsdam Decree that acknowledges the Emperor, but still refuses to guarantee his position. General Leslie Groves decides to delay shipping the second plutonium core and contacts Robert Bacher just after he had signed receipt for shipping the core to Tinian Island. The core is retrieved from the car before it leaves Los Alamos, NM. Also, Strategic Air Forces Carl Spaatz halts area firebombing1945 Aug 13 Secretary of War Henry Stimson recommends shipping the second plutonium core to Tinian Island. President Truman orders area firebombing resumed. Gen. Henry Arnold, US Army Air Force, launches the largest raid on Japan of the war with over 1000 B-29s and other aircraft, carrying 6000 tons of bombs1945 Aug 14 Following leaflet bombing of Tokyo with surrender terms, Hirohito orders that an Imperial Edict accepting surrender be issued. At 2:49 p.m. (1:49 a.m. Washington time), Japanese news agency announces surrender.Secretary of War Stimson https://www.atomicheritage.org/k...https://www.atomicheritage.org/k...
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 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 America justified in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Given those holding to the propaganda line I am compelled to assert a definite no! Months before the Japanese had been fielding inquiries for a neutral party to help in negotiating terms for surrender with the main problem being the status of the Emperor. This for those who may have more naive concepts on this question is no small problem because the last civil war in Japan henged on the restoration of the Meiji compounded by a want of isolationism. Two weeks before the drop the Russians had declared an intent to join the Allies against Japan so even the cop out notion that it would have cost hundreds of thousands of lives is false speculation. Most importantly given the situation why couldn't the States call a short term cease fire to demonstrate the bomb on a mutually agreed un-populated island. America has a very vendictive personality. One answer I read calls the attack on Pearl Harbour dasterdly, which is a popuplar enough claim but doesn't that make Washington's attack on Valley Ford even more so. Pearl Harbour was a Militay Base and Americans had been sending support against Japans expansions at a time in which it refused to maintain diplomacy with her. America under Doolittle also bombed Tokyo earlier in the war, not as any part of a real stratergy but to demonstrate just how spiteful and vendictive it could be! About !00 years before the war Japan considering the West to be ill mannered barbarians and so attempted to isolate itself as it had for nearly 200 years. The West answered with the Black Ships of Admiral Perry forcing their want and Japan into it's counter modernization. A modernization that saw Europe attempting to colonize as much of Asia and Africa as they could get their hands on and logically Japan began staking out a piece of Asia for Asians! The methods may have been doubious but the cause in WW2 was clear, and only by understanding this full lesson can we really comprehend even the most basic sense of human nature. In that, America is no angle!
The United States justification for dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was?
The United States justification for dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that 1. the bombs' destructive power might end the war quickly 2. Japan's military power was centered in these two cities 3. Japan had attacked major cities in other nations 4. Japan was on the verge of developing its own atomic weapon