During World War 2, the United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki ( both in Japan ) in the month of August 1945. Was it justified ?????
133299
It was a crime against humanity.  It cannot be justified & it will never be forgotten.  Shame on governments who destroy the lives of powerless civilians.
148500
There's the left and right answer:\n\nThe lefties say:  A) Japan was ready to surrender, B) the bombs were used as a demonstration of U.S. power for the Soviet Union.  \n\nThey also say:  1) The oft repeated in U.S. history books and history programming that there would be the loss of 100s of thousands of U.S. soldiers if Japan was invaded is incorrect.  2) Japan had approached the King of Sweden for to notify the U.S. that they were ready to negotiate.  3) U.S. wanted an unconditional surrender which would allow U.S. corporations to open up Japanese markets.  4) Russia was about to enter the war against Japan now that German was defeated, and the U.S. didn’t want Russia to be part of the partitionoing of the orient, ie, no Eastern Bloc as was done in Europe. \n \nMy feelings are that the US was justified knowing that the Japanese totally rejected the Potsdam demands, had waged total war including the sneak attack on American soil, and had demonstrated suicidal defenses of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, among others, and with the Soviets ready to jump in, i'd say Truman made the right choice.  The Cold War was already looming and better to get US hegemy in the Orient sooner than face the prospect of another Soviet bloc theatre. do i feel sorry for the men, women and children who were vaporized? sure i do, the same sorrow for those who suffered the firestorms of Dresden and Tokyo, but a full scale war was going on and me in my easy living life of 2006 can't possible denounce what was happening 50 years ago.\n\nCheck out the following site for a good overview of the decisions leading up to the detonationsl, including copies of the English translation of leaflets dropped before the bombing.
415788
Please calrify your question.\nAre you trying to JUSTIFY 9/11??????
37969
No, Japan's military was basically defeated by the time the A-bombs were dropped. American bombers could fly over Japan almost completely unmolested, and the Japanese only contolled their home islands (Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu).\n\nJapan had absolutely no ability at that point to go on an offensive. But what they did have was the willingness to fight to the death to defend their homeland, and the military government refused to surrender because of their Samurai "honor". So any conventional invasion would have had a huge cost in terms of casualties (I think US war planners estimated greater than 2 million total, but I'm not sure). The A-Bomb was dropped to force the Japanese into surrender without the bloody land war.
245663
The Armageddon is the one that holds the nuke. America is one of them, and we are the only Nation to use the weapon. What makes you think it hasn't already started when America nuked Japan? There is a 1000 years of suffering afterward. I think it happened back then myself. Nobody knows if we are supposed to live in a Garden of Eden, or struggle with wars and Capitalism. Think about it and read what is said in Mathew from Jesus.
595936
The bomb dropped on the 6th was named "Little Boy"\nThe bomb dropped on the 9th was named "Fat Man"\n\nThe 2nd was dropped after Japan refused to surrender & it was estimated over 500,000 - 1,000,000 American soldiers would be required to defeat Japan. There was no code word - they left on their mission knowing what they would have to do, unless new orders came.
355077
I LOVE Lord of the Flies. \nWell, here goes:\nWW2 started in the Pacific in 1937. It started in Europe in 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and defeated the nation a month or so later. They also ended up invading and conquering the Netherlands, Denmark, the Balkans, Greece, etc.\nThe Germans were doing great; in fact, they were even defeating the British, when they stupidly invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1940. They managed to get all the way into the mainland (Russia), but were beaten back after the siege of Leningrad ended, Moscow was not taken, and Stalingrad was won by the Soviets.\nMeanwhile the Americans were attacked in 1941 by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. The US was already mobilizing for war, and the day after Pearl Harbor, our congress declared war on Japan. A day after that, Germany declared war on us. We spent a while training our troops, meanwhile sending many to the Pacific theater early on in 1942 to fight Japan. We finally went into Continental Europe with the Brits and Canadians on June 6, 1944 or D-day. We won, pushing the Germans east out of France. The Italians abandoned their allies the Germans, and sided with the Americans and company.\nWe went into Belgium and the Netherlands with our allies the British and Canadians, liberated them, then finally penetrated Germany itself.\nWe were about to take Berlin, but decided against it. We allowed the Soviets to take it instead, because they were more willing to tolerate the huge amount of casualties it took to take that one city.\nIn the Pacific, we island hopped, meaning we liberated island after island. We were about to go into Tokyo, but decided against it. Too many casualties. So, instead of course we dropped the atomic bombs! \nIn the end both Germany and her remaining allies, Hungary, Romania, etc. surrendered, as did Japan in the pacific.\nHitler killed himself, as did most of his staff, and the Japanese people were forbidden by the US to "emperor worship", which is what caused the war in Japan in the first place.\nHope this helps.
597933
no it was not necessary. yes, the war could have ended with out the A bomb. The reason for the A bomb was to make other nations aware of the power the U.S. had.
330790
Faced with the prospect of a direct assault on the Japanese mainland that would have cost millions of lives, many American, president Truman chose the “nuclear option”. The humanitarian consideration of destroying civilian populations to neutralize military targets is gut wrenching for the leader of a moral society. From the American perspective, especially those that would have lead the assault, it was the correct decision.
319832
For 2 reasons-in my opinion:  One, the number of deaths in one attack... more than Pearl Harbor.  And two, no disrespect to your possible view, but I think the US is the only country whose leaders actually DO SOMETHING when they are attacked.  Other countries complain about the US until they need help fighting someone... ironic?  SO, to answer your question, my thoughts are, my country actually doesn't sit back and wait to see what another country thinks if it is attacked.  All of Europe would be "Germany" today if this was not the case.
337288
askwrites is an idiot.  In an ideal world that would work, but in an ideal world no one would make nuclear weapons to begin with. \n\nTrue the U.S. is the only country that used nuclear weapons, but do the research and the study. There were many lives saved on both sides by doing so.  An invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Also, we did not know about the fall out from nuclear weapons was so bad. \n\nPersonally, I don't think any group should be able to build nuclear devices. That's one of the responsibilities of the U.N. I just wish that other countries would step up and do things about the injustices in the world other than the U.S.
103270
no it is not justified..the only reson we ewnt to war in the first place was for oil. and i think everyone knows that. This is wat war is all about, thorughout history form ww1 war was about natural resources liek oil. defiantely not justified
147633
I would answer you by a similar answer; can anyone beside me see why USA and Israel give themselves the whole right to posses nuclear weapons and prevent others from have them? And just a small reminder; USA is the unique nation over the whole history which has used the nuclear weapons and it has committed the biggest and most aggressive genocide  against hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Japan at the end of World War II (in spite of the fact that Japan had announced its surrendering before USA committed its crime which give no justified moral excuses). It was only the desire of showing off, arrogance and terrorizing other nations.
591304
This is a complicated issue, and there isn’t a black and white answer. But I can offer a few factors for you to consider. Prior to the Japanese’s attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. had refused to fight in WWII. We were only drawn in when Japan, unprovoked, destroyed most of our Navy in a sneak attack. Before WWII was over (a war that America had wanted to stay out of) more than half a million American troops lay dead. So how did the war end?The Japanese finally surrendered when they witnessed the destructive capacity of the nuclear weapon. A few hundred thousand Japanese were killed when our atomic bombs were dropped, but many other lives were saved. It’s hard to say how many, but consider that before we ever dropped “The Bomb”, more than 50 million people had been killed in WWII already. Even though many Japanese died, there is a good chance that more lives were saved overall by ending the war immediately.\n\nWith that said, I think that once the U.S. witnessed the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, we had a dramatic “change of heart”. Reasonable people understand that all wars have some collateral damage, but nuclear weapons are so indiscriminate that almost all of the destruction is collateral damage. A nuclear bomb cannot distinguish between enemy combatants and innocent civilians. It destroys everything. Recognizing this, the U.S. has spent trillions of dollars developing precision guided weapons. Rather than “nuking” an entire city, we can fire GPS guided missiles that only destroy military targets. These advanced weapons systems are more costly to make, but by using them instead, we can preserve the lives of innocent people. So while the U.S. did use nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that we ever will again. Consider that the U.S. has been involved in many wars since then and has not used, or even threatened to use nuclear weapons.\n\nThe United States along with the other nuclear powers, and most of the countries in the world, have decided that nuclear weapons development should be discouraged. Most countries have agreed not to develop these weapons, and the countries that have them have been slowly reducing their stockpiles. I’d like to see us reduce our stockpiles even more quickly, but if we are down to about 2000 than we’ve made significant progress. We used to have more than 30,000.\n\nWouldn’t you agree that it’s bad for anybody else to get these things, regardless of who already has them? The more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the worse off everyone is. Now with that said, there are certain countries that are of particular concern to the world, and to the United States in particular. The most dangerous countries – the ones where we are justified in “getting our panties in a bunch”, are the ones who are most likely to use them against us or our allies. Iran, for example, is pretty anti-American. Most Iranians, including the Iranian President, consider the U.S. to be “The Great Satan”. They have many reasons, mostly religious, for hating us so passionately, but one of the greatest is that we are “friends” with Israel. \n\nThe Iranian President has called for the destruction of the State of Israel on many occasions, and he views our alliance with them as an impediment to the fulfillment of his goals. Is it hard to imagine that someone who has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” would be willing to use an atomic weapon? It’s true that they don’t currently have the technology to produce weapons grade uranium, but the technologies aren’t nearly as far apart as you might imagine.\n\nAs I mentioned above, this really is a complicated issue with no clear cut answers. What if they really only want to use nuclear power for energy? We can’t know for sure, but we do know that the Iranian President has said some pretty disturbing things about his own intentions, and the longer that they continue to enrich uranium, the closer they will get to having weapon
327117
I believe that Hiroshima was always the primary target that day....I think it was Nagasaki 3 days later that was selected because the primaty target was cloud bound.  I think it was Kyoto that was the primary target for the second bomb.
154619
Sept. 11...  This was NOT a war, we weren't expecting it and thousands of innocent poeple died.  There was Pearl Harbor before but, that was an attack on a military base so, I don't think that can qualify and there wasn't near as many people dead?  The others that you mentioned were war situations and in war people are expected to die.  I would say the War in Iraq but, that wouldn't qualify either becasue it's a war (for the same reasons above)
620532
don't waste time defending this proposition. the fact is that all wars have survivors, even nuclear war. I'd suggest that your essay should chronicle progression of the mass murder that commenced in 1938 and continued through August 1945, with the extermination of 35 - 50 million (no one knows exact casualty totals) people during WW II. Billions survived this catastrophe, and billions will survive the next one.  Nonsense aphorisms such as the one your essay is to explore seem sensible, but in fact serve no purpose other than to distract rational persons from viewing their world in terms of its history and likely - even if dark - future. good luck!