A lot of people even to this day still talk about this topic.Was it justified or was it not?.Why did the leadership of the United States choose to drop the atomic bomb on Japan in August 1945, not once but twice?Its not an easy question , you might be asking why? well because of course everybody has their own opinions ,then theirs the fact about what the person must had seen or heard about this topic and how much knowledge they know about it.
Personally I don’t think its even close to being justified,why?.What the U.S did was an act of terrorism and look what happens when you don’t look at something from a different perspective.Both of the bombs had killed innocent men,women and children in a matter of seconds.There is no reason why it should have been more than one bomb dropped and for what so that the allied forces could say “WE WON” if that’s not murder I don’t know what is.There are so many words to describe the use of the atomic bomb but the ones that stand out the most are barbaric and disappointment.
“We had adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians”.Said William.D.Leahy.Fleet Admiral William Daniel Leahy was an American naval officer who served as the senior-most United States military officer on active duty during World War II.
Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified:
- Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.
- American refusal to modify its “unconditional surrender” demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan’s resistance.
- A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan’s leaders to quit without killing many people.
- Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.
- The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.
- The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.
- Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
- Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.
Around 2,400 American Naval personnel were killed in Pearl Harbor, and around 1,200 were injured. How is it justified, the bombing and killing of over 300,000 people, mainly CIVILIANS, due to petty revenge. Big deal, they killed 2,000 odd people; those people were military personnel. The people the Americans killed were mainly innocent civilians. Worse than the Nazis, at least they targeted potentially threatening points.Posted by: AceInTheHolehttp://www.debate.org/opinions/was-the-bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-justified
Based on this quote just this one reason should be enough to say its not close to being justified, if its justified to kill over 300000 civilians , thousand of injured people that were FOUND and to this day because of the toxic radiation people are still dying or are mentally and physically injured from it .If you still say its not justified then clearly you think the lives of civilians don’t matter. Yes i get it its the middle of a possible war zone and in a way it did end world war, but i feel like they should have taken it from a different perspective.Plus I don’t think people actually understand the difference between a civilian and a solider.A solider is risking his or her life to ensure the safety of ones country or people, signing some kind of contract perhaps , knowing that they could possibly die or get severely injured and I respect each and everyone of them for that. But a civilian is the total opposite they are not risking their lives , they want to be in a safe and secure place away from all the conflict.If you think otherwise then maybe it is justified.
Examples of what they should have done
- Discussing more with both parties
- Giving an ultimatum that helped both sides
- Being more patient about
- The U.S shouldn’t have threaten them with an unconditional surrender which leads me to my next point
- Not dropping a bomb , knowing it will only cause havoc
What happened to the civilians and area exactly?
If you call that justified, than we are not human beings , what possible reason is there that this is okay?
Below is a copy of the “Unconditional Surrender” that president Truman had “bestowed upon” the empire of Japan.Stating a Ultimatum.
As you can tell from the document its totally unfair because theirs not one thing that helps the country.For example by taking away their military or reinforcements , would cause them to have no real protection which was really needed during the ww2 why?.If you don’t know already Japan is not an allied power which consists of Britain, America, Canada and more but for Japan they fall on the Axis power with Nazi Germany which means they are targeting each other and by being powerless means easily being taken over and Japan was not giving up without a fight.
Its disgusting to see what people will do just to win isn’t it? What were they thinking when they thought of this plan?Why an atomic bomb out of everything?
To answer that question I think all America wanted to do was be at the top , to be the big dog because for some reason they thought of this thing that if something were to happen in the world like a war or battle or some kind or crisis , America is there “FOR THE RESCUE”. Nobody sees the fact they always sweep in a situation when there not even needed for.Its gotten to the point that people actually start to believe the America has to be the one to do all the work and when they do there always right about the choice they make.Like this situation.
The atomic bombs saved hundreds and thousands of American Lives. That’s what it comes down to. We warned them it would happen…their response was
f*** off…we showed them what we had…then they surrendered. Truman handled this perfectly.Said Jacob Cardwell YOUTUBE. From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InTPC6oylK8
REALLY I DIDN’T KNOW THAT , like obviously every single country that was fighting was at least fighting so that there people would be safe in one way or another EVEN though america wasn’t really at danger they hadn’t been a target yet and what makes it even more funny is that there “decision” makes them look like a hypocrite, why? because you say all this stuff about saving the civilians when you go kill innocent civilians THOUSANDS OF THEM.Answer to his response about “handling this perfectly” TOTAL BS like seriously? this was the best way, if it is i would choose the worst way it would have been better.
If you still think its justified you have no right to complain about 9/11.Americans meant to send a message to the Japanese with a bomb on their civilians.The terrorists meant to send a message to the US when they attacked the WTC. The message may have been different but both case to attack civilians to get the message across.If you say differently than its personal.
Its like their addicted to war or something.IF ITS NOT YOUR FIGHT DON’T STEP IN.
Yet Americans think of themselves as a peace-loving people, and we certainly don’t regard our country as a “warrior nation” or “garrison state.” Teddy Roosevelt was probably the last U.S. president who seemed to view war as an activity to be welcomed (he once remarked that “A just war is in the long run far better for a man’s soul than the most prosperous peace”), and subsequent presidents always portray themselves as going to war with great reluctance, and only as a last resort.BY
When I think of America during that moment in time I think of a baby. Not just any old baby but a baby that is a sore loser and cries when they don’t get what they want.In this case the baby wants to have a lollipop but in this case it’s a bomb that can destroy anything in its path, an when there was none left and nothing to do with the left over plastic stick they throw it somewhere they shouldn’t have because it causes a mess in this case that was on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I get it I do the fact that everybody has their own opinions but i feel like the reasons why people say its justified is because there ashamed that , that could have possibly been their country or that the man that had to something to do with making the decision was his or hers great great grandfather, even possibly just disliking on the Japanese culture or people and even to the extreme of being to patriotic .But Take that all away and just think about what I said , think about it from a different perspective.
I’ve been talking a bit about different perspective so I thought why not just see it from the source…
It is clear that the majority of the citizens of the United States, faced with a moral dilemma larger than they could handle, had little to no visible concern for the Japanese people, but instead concentrated on the future of atomic energy, thereby avoiding the then present situation surrounding the newly released atomic energy and the effects that accompanied it. The co-pilot of the Enola Gay, Robert Lewis wrote in his diary shortly after his plane dropped the bomb on Hiroshima: “My God, what have we done?”. Yes, what did the United States do, but more importantly, what did it not do?.From http://users.dickinson.edu/~history/product/steele/seniorthesis.htm
Still think its justified?If that’s not enough proof you must be in denial.
:Page from https://jspivey.wikispaces.com/Atomic+Bomb+CS /effects from the bombing
:Page from http://www.theteradactyl.com/2012/08/i-am-become-death.html /Burning after bombing still in effect
:Page from http://www.amusingplanet.com/2010/08/65th-anniversary-of-hiroshima-atomic.html /
:Page from http://msdyer-isthecatspajamas.blogspot.ca/ Child without parents
:Page from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/japanese_surrender_document/
:Page from http://cliparts.co/crying-picture / America as a baby during that moment