Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a cowardly act by the USA?
962061
Bombing civilians,Men ,Women and Children was wrong.It's America's biggest mistake.Nothing could justify that awful act.Had America lost the war Harry Truman would have been tried as the war criminal he was.It was a shameful act.
434427
interesting distortions and outright lies about history here...\nPearl harbour attack came first. The japanese began to loose from about 1 year into the war. The americans won, (no, the americans are not looosing when we reduce the size of an attacking force from occuping many nations back to its original size) despite american victories, the japanese refused to surrender prefering death to surrender, so the usa used nukes on two cities, and saving many american and japanese lives in the process\nLikewise 9/11 and thousands of other terrorist incidents occured before afghanistan or iraq. There are thousands of muslim terrorist bombings etc in lands that have nothing to do with the usa or even the west thus nothing to do with actions in iraq or afghanistan.. (india, thialand, sudan just for example)\nJapan was a facist, fanatical society (sounds like some muslim countries) and was given democracy... iraq and afghanistan were given democracy as well, and they will be better off for it..
200761
Both.\n\nThe Japanese knew that it was only a matter of time before the United States would enter the war, so they took a gamble to strike pre-emptively to keep America out of the war.\n\nTheir intent was not to scare America into submission, but to cripple the Pacific fleet enough so that it would take them over a year to rebuild. By that time, the Japanese figure that they would have entrenched themselves in the conquered territories to make it impossible for America to get them out.\n\nThey made a few mistakes:\n1) They underestimated America's industrial power. Under normal non-war conditions, it would have taken over a year to repair the fleet, but when all of America converted to war production, it took only a small fraction of that time.\n\n2) They crippled the battleship fleet, but the Navy aircraft carriers were not at Pearl Harbor at the time. Military wisdom at the time made the battleships the main fighting force of the fleet, but at that time, the Navy was already changing tactics to make aircraft carriers the main fighting force. The attack at Pearl Harbor only sped up that process. America retaliated to Pearl Harbor using their carriers.
812863
lol...i think they will do that.... call every body else as "Terrorist"\n\notherwise they would have destroyed their nuke first.....they just want to keep their nukes and restrained others not to keep them..by saying....."deadliest weapon ...we are still sad after using on Japan twice........ (bull*s*hit)........Just to keep hold on others..
591078
Because at the time the US was the only nation with atomic bombs.  \n\nAtomic bombs were so new and powerful that no one knew anything about them. Fear of the unknown is powerful. \n\nAlso it showed Japan that the US would stop at nothing to end the war and that they wanted the war over now not later and would keep fighting until it was over.
690767
Nope; the planners of the attack were firmly convinced that it would strike a crippling blow against their eventual rival in the Pacific, forcing the U.S. to make more favorable arrangements to split spheres of influence in the Pacific Rim.\n\nThe Japanese Empire was shamelessly and eagerly imperialist; they wanted everything in Asia subservient to them.  They saw the U.S.A. as the only serious obstacle to that hegemony, since the English, French, and Dutch were tied up in World War.
870591
It was the US entry in the race to develop the atomic bomb. If we hadn't done it, the Germans or the Japanese would have because they were only a bit behind us in the race. It was inevitable that it would be developed one way or another.
364443
yes and no. the yes part is that they definitly need help rebuilding, and if you remember that the US  spent 7 years rebuilding Japan after Hiroshima and Nagaski. and look at japan today. the U.S is the richest country in the world and Japan is second and Germany, another country that the U.S helped rebuild, is third. so the countries that the U.S helps rebuild are doing very well, thank you very much. the downside is that innocent civilans are being killed, and i dont support that at all.
929844
Probably the same one FDR gave the day after it happened.  \nHe didn't have to convince anyone of anything.  The Japanese declared war on the US, formally, while the attack was still going on.  The US declared a state of war on Dec 8th, retroactive to the time of the attack.  Germany declared war on the US a day or so later and the US reciprocated almost immediately.
340494
The US learned that their actions could cause wrong interpretations by the Soviets, example: \n\nUS destroyers were dropping signaling depth charges on a Soviet submarine near the quarantine line, intending to force it to surface. Unbeknownst to the US Navy, it was carrying a nuclear-tipped torpedo. The captain lost his temper.  The oxygen supply dropped in the sub and as temperatures rose to 120 degrees, some sailors fainted.\nVadim Pavlovich Orlov, an intelligence officer said the bombardment was like "sitting in a metal barrel, which somebody is constantly blasting with a sledgehammer.... But we were still holding on, trying to escape. We were suffering like this for about four hours."\n\nThe sub's commander, Valentin Savitsky, who could not communicate with the Soviet general staff, thought a nuclear war may have started up above. He ordered an officer to assemble the nuclear-tipped torpedo and prepare it to be fired.\n\nBut Second Captain Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov told Savitsky that the conditions for firing the torpedo, a rupture of the hull, had not occurred. Savitsky reversed his order and the submarine surfaced.  Nuclear war was averted thanks to the actions of a subordinate officer.\n\nThe outcome of this event, after it became known on the American military on how close they came to nuclear war was to change its policies regarding military confrontations, ie from now on they would take into account the possibility that the Soviets might interpret their actions as a cause for a nuclear response.
247111
The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan were on cities with no significant military targets. I had family on both sides of WWII and lost family on both sides. Dropping the atomic bombs took a lot of consideration from the government back then and decided that it was the only option they had to avoid large scale death invading, both to the US and to Japanese civilians. If it had to be done, then I agree with you, why not a legitimate target? Pearl Harbor was a military target attack by "surprise". The Japanese officials who were to deliver the notice of war that morning were delayed in a US waiting room and were not able to deliver the notice prior to the attack. War history is written by the victors, so it was a surprise. To rally America into war, the President called it a surprise in his radio address. I ask any of you to take a trip to Hiroshima and visit the museum. My mother's family was on the other side of the mountain range from Nagasaki and that is what saved them, but they did witness the cloud, had some affect of the fire, and saw the destruction when they went to help. Japan's research at the time determined that the bomb was not possible with the technology available, so they did not believe the US's claim they had it. Japan was negotiating for surrender after the first but the US want unconditional, so dropped the second. I understand the decision to drop, just not the target.\n\nPaulHalloway-I do disagree with you on the legitemacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being military targets. May 1945 the target committee listed Hiroshima as a class AA target using year old inteligence. The depot had been moved in Oct 1944. Nagasaki was never on the Target committee's list. The only other reason for Hiroshima to be targeted was the terrain and larger city. Mountains around Hiroshima would increase the affects of the blast and the size of the city  would allow that if the bomb was off target, would still cause mass distruction and casualties. It was also in the original plan recommendation to follow the bombing by an incendiary bombing of the city. Also the orders from Gen Spaatz on July 1945, identified the city as the target, not any military base, contrary to Truman's direction to Sec. of War Stimson.
633614
I can't find ANY good ethical arguments. You mean good unethical ones to rationalize his actions. Didn't Hitler think the same way. For the good of the many means violating the US Constitution. And it really isn't fiction is it? You just need some ammunition. Well  you won't get it here!\n\nAnd there was nothing ethical about nuking Japan. Truman was led to believe they were military targets, when in fact most were women and children. There wasn't a military target in sight! And we didn't have to nuke 2 cities!
785092
In my honest opinion I wouldn't be surprised. Did you know that the american government knew about a possible attack on Pearl Harbor. They knew about it but did nothing. Why? Because they wanted to join the war, but the american people did not want to. So they needed a push, for war. What better push for war than having the enemy attack you on your soil. The one thing maked me believe that the government had something to do w/911, is that there was no plane wreckage or luggage or anything resembling a plane when it went down in the Pentagon and in Penn. Why?
345767
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.
638564
Yes, they had used it but only once in world war two. They dropped the bomb in 1945.
344032
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.
58312
At that time, Nuclear usage for war is still not forbidden to use. In fact, Japan was the first real-battle-field test for atomic bomb (nuke). Even the scientist that make the nuke didn't know how devastating the nuke is. I think they regret it quite a bit to use nuke at that time (but there was no other choice to end WW2 ASAP).\nUSA drop the nuke with good intention (ending the WW2 and prevent more casualities) and Iran... I don't know.\nAnd Iran has the nuke now. So it's a whole different story.