How can the massacre of thousands of innocent people ever be justified?

Absolutely. A lesser known fact is that the govenernment of japan was telling the people that they would have to fight us in the streets because we were coming to japan as evil invader to eat their children. (no joke). The 2 atomic bombs killed approx. 100,000 people each, but so much more would have been lost if we had not decisively ended the war right then and there

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to this question. It is even hard to find words to explain just the fact how complex this question is. One would have to do a lot of research to find out what happened in the context of that war. Justice is a relative term here and every participant in the war has his own perspective. I will just say that may be it is not that important whether if was justified or not. No country that took part in that war has clean hands: every major power committed horrible crimes be it Germany or USSR or USA or Britain or Japan. This is not to justify anything, of course. A war is a war: somebody starts it and somebody has to die including civilians. It is inevetible. That is what history has demonstrated over and over.

How many people would have been killed if they didn't drop them? I don't know whether the Allied would be able to end the war so quickly without nukes. Also, the effects were so horrific nobody has dared to use them eversince... Did the atomic bombs on Japan prevent us from starting WW3 during the cold war? We'll never know. Was it justified in order to win WW2? Or was it out of revenge, just like the bombing of Dresden, Germany? I don't justify ANY acts of war, but we still live in a primitive world, and sometimes we have to return fire for selfpreservation...

I believe it can. It brought an end to the war in the Pacific and saved other people who would have died otherwise. Japan was trying to develop the atom bomb themselves and I have no doubt they would have dropped it on America had they gotten to it first. Horrific though it was, from Americas' perspective of self preservation, It was the right thing to do. I am not suggesting that killing thousands of civilians was a good thing that would be ridiculous, but neither is the inevitible death of more soldiers, which is what would have happened if the war was prolonged. Can you justify the 'lesser' (from Americas point of view), of two evils? When faced with your own destruction, I believe you can justify almost anything to yourself.

In comment on Poseidon's answer, peter b wrote "How does anybody know what the course of history will be? You can only have faith in the propaganda you hear -- I don't believe the politicians that told us that for a minute." All you have to is look at the battles that were fought in the Pacific Theater. The closer we got to invading the Japanese home islands, the more fiercely they fought. In the battle of Iwo Jima, when the Japanese started to run out of ammo, rather than surrender, they staged a kamikaze charge. Soldiers without fire arms charged the American lines with the intent to kill as many as they could and take their weapons to continue the fight. In the end, of the 20,700 Japanese infantry that were defending the island, only 1,083 lived to become POW's. The rest fought to the death. On Okinawa, the Japanese forces suffered 110,000 dead verses 7,455 captured. The civilians of the island had been lied to about what they could expect under US occupation and many committed suicide rather than surrender. Given these numbers, an invasion of the home islands could be expected to be even worse than any of these other battles. The casualties on both sides would most likely have been higher than the 214,000 people who died as a result of the atomic bombs. So, it can be argued that the bombs actually saved lives.

No, But i know where we should drop one now.

Do you think the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified? Yes, the atomic bomb was necessary and justified.

It was interesting to note that some of the scientists responsible for producing the weapons, petitioned the government to demonstrate the power of the bomb to the Japanese first. Japan was at the time all but defeated, beaten back to its homeland and severely crippled in its ability to produce weaponry of any offensive capability. Some argue that a final invasion of the homeland was not nearly as pressing as may have been portrayed by the media and politicians, and therefore a demonstration of the awesome power of the bomb somewhere like Tokyo bay, or perhaps dropped into the crater of their beloved "Fuji san" may have been enough to wake them up to the reality of their defeat. American forces killed tens of thousands of Japanese children. Children who were the victims of their own leaders, and ultimately victims of American war policy. I won't presume to know what the outcome may or may not have been, but it needs to be said that there were reasonable arguments against the hasty use of the bomb, that were drowned out in the cacophony of justifications for going ahead. All countries have versions of history which are written from points of view that are sympathetic to their national interests. Americans would do well to open their minds to the full range of historical perspectives, before simply regurgitating the standard lines given by their military leaders and government, as if they are somehow infallible.

Tough question. Possibly the answer lies in what it demonstrated, the hellish power of atomic weapons. It is possible to suggest that by the use of the bomb in 1945, much of the world quickly learned its true devistation and how its continued use would surely end us all. For over 60 years we have not seen a similar use of such weapons, and the use of it has played a role in why it has not been used again. The only unfortunate thing is that the atomic bomb used then is only a 'pea' in comparison to what some nations could use now, and that history has a habit of repeating itself every 60 years or so, especially for those that forget.

Yes, it was a terrible incident for the Japanese. With that said, there was a special on the History channel that estimated the American death toll with an invasion of Japan's largest island would have been near 1 million GI's. So, yes it was justified. Answer number 10 - I know several places we should drop one now!

No, Positively NO!! It was a black day in the history of the world and human lives..... Killing of human lives justifies none, there are no winners in wars....and no justification for sure.....

Truman himself was torn about the decision to drop the bomb. The creators of the bomb knew very little about the after-effects of radiation poisoning. The Powers-That-Be knew that a) we had a powerful weapon and b) our men were dying even after the Germans surrendered. It was confusing for everyone. Einstein wrote that fateful letter to FDR about the power of the atomic bomb and then later regretted writing it. If that's not evidence for the ever-tentative ethics of the Powers-That-Be, then I don't know what is.

This question is very hard to answer, I think its both yes and no, Yes because it forced Japan to surrender and end the war and if we didn't the war would have been going on much longer although ironically it helped stop the countless bloodshed, and no because it killed many innocent civilians despite the Allies dropping pamphlets saying they should evauate because they will bomb there cities, and today many people in those cities still are giving birth to children with defects. So the answer is both yes and no.

The debate about the morality of the bombing is not about the NUMBER of people who were killed. More people were killed in the firestorms in Hamburg, Dresden etc. Or in the fire raids on Tokyo. It's not about the casualties being CIVILLIAN (see above) It was not MASS MURDER (as found in the camps in Europe, the Bhatan death march, of the Thai/Burma railway. Massive civillian deaths were the product of a new war technology (the bomber) that was inaccurate and the untried supposition that you could bomb a people into submission. It was not about the LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION. Just look at many photos of German cities, Tokyo etc. May be not as flat Hiroshima but wasted none the less. It was not about HOW they died. Having your lungs sucked out or cooking to death in a fire storm in Hamburg was not that pleasant. Radiation introduced a different type injury. What it WAS about was the "horror" that it was one plane, one bomb and the awesome power in such a small object. As to the choice of target, perhaps it could be argued that a demonstration could have been just as effective. I do suspect that perhaps the choice for a civillian target helped gather data for research, set an emphatic example for the Japanese and showed the Russians what the US was capable of. It is easy for us in hindsight to question the morality of a decision made by people living in very different cicumstances. They didn't know that it would definitely lead to a surrender. But president would ignore the bomb in favour of have millions of dead Americans! Wouldn't you give it a go?! What would you say to the mothers of the dead if you didn't try it? There is absolutely no doubt that when it was used it saved millions of lives. After the battles in Saipan, Iwo Jima and especially in Okinawa the planners in Washington re-estimited their figures of how many Allied and Japanese casulties would be required to get complete surrender from the Japanese as the result of invasion. They estimated something in the ball park of 15 million dead because of the following: Lies told to the people of what the Allies would do to them gave them no way out for them and their family but to fight to the death. As other posts have said, the children in Saipan were thrown off cliffs followed by their mothers jumping after them. Defence of the Emperor was a sacred responsibility. It's their homeland. Who wouldn't defend their home? Their militarism, combined with the cultish belief in the samurai tradition, would see them fight to every last person and breath. Any one who surrendered did not deserve to live, loses face and dishonours, family, ancestors and the nation. In view of the almost complete domination of the sea by the Allies, Japan, an island nation, could have been blockaded into submission. There is the problem of the time that would take (- perhaps years in view of how they felt about capititulation) and there is the problem of the difference between surrender and submission. Germany was not "crushed" at the end of WW1 and so made WW2 (or something like it)almost inevitable. Japan needed to have the Emperor cult/Japan militarism/samurai hero-worship "crushed" to be faced with the immorality of aggressive war.

This is sort of a duplicate question. Refer here: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/87475

Only if you think ending the war was a worthwhile cause.

Atomic bombs, you mean. I don't know, but it certainly wasn't a good thing to do.

I can't say to have researched it in depth, but, although it cost lots of civilian lives, I know it accomplished two things. Firstly, it quickly ended the war in the Pacific. Secondly, it showed the world that America was not scared of using its power. Also, I think I heard that the firebombings we did over Japanese cities were pretty horrific too (and probably caused more painful deaths). I am against bombing civilian targets, but this might have actually saved lives. I don't know.

No, I don't. I don't think mass murder is ever justified.

No. The suffering caused was extreme. If you read accounts one finds out about survivors with 5th degree burns (down to the bone). To create a nuclear explosion above a city causes a conflaguration with temperatures exceeding 1 million degrees. Doing this to human beings is totally inexcusable.

No. It wasn't necessary. There were other ways to solve the problem, and launching an atomic bomb and killing millions wasn't one of them.

totally justified !!!...proof?, the japs didn't even think about surrendering after the first one went off...and only after they were told that the second blast was only tiny compared to what would follow if they didn't lay down their weapons...even then it was touch'n'go as whether they would

hurific

It is totally INHUMAN!! no one ever has to throw an atomic bobm to any one... think of all the people... they might not be your own race but they are human too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! u got to respect!!! it doesnt matter watever they did to u ... if u fight fire with fire ur just gonna get BURN!!!!!

My former father in law was a great & wonderful man. He never forgot Pearl Harbor, so since he thought it was justified, chances are it was

If a crazy person with a belt of dynamite was running through your neighborhood setting bombs to blow up when he pushed a button, should you just let him kill anyone he wanted to? Or should the police or someone else shoot him in the head? Japan was like that with their Boshido culture, no one deserved to live except Japanese. They raped and tortured women and children and performed medical experiments on living people. To invade and win in Japan would have cost over 1 million Americans and close to a million Japanese. Dropping both bombs killed less than 200,000. It saved lives.

All I can say is that I am damned glad I did not have to decide - and if I did, all I know too is that every Veteran from the Pacific Theater is convinced, to this day, that the invasion of Japan would have been a cataclysmic bloodbath anyway...for both Allies and Japanese. At least this way, it was less of a horror-story.

it was a completely logical choice at the time, ive said it before and ill say it again, its an understandable decision given the options facing truman at the time. if you had given it to the americans for voting at the time, the majority would have voted yes. it was logical, dont judge it in hindsight after we learned what it could do, it wouldnt be fair.

I really don't know much about this. But I do know that if the US hadn't done it, there would have been a lot more Americans killed than the amount of Japanese killed by the atomic bombs. In addition to the two atomic bombs, there were a lot of incendiary bombs dropped on Japan. Now, those might not have been necessary. But like I said, I don't know much about this subject.

inhumane

To kill other humans is inhuman, but in the course of human events it becomes necessary. Necessary then needs no justification. As I see it there was a reason and a purpose to the destruction of a nation and the construction of a superpower. Do I think we are better off than we were? America yes, mankind maybe not, the world may never know. The use of the bomb was unforgivable but victors don't ask for forgiveness, they don't need it. In fact, no matter who the monster is, the loser always begs forgiveness. So I say that had I been there as I am now, I would not have dropped the bomb, but sitting in the comfort of my bedroom, I know why they did it and what it did for the world and the right it gives to go back and say that it should not have been done.

Completely unjustified. The Japanese were largely defeated already, with their navy and air force routed, their cities fire bombed. They were already looking to surrender. America's insistence on an "unconditional" surrender made them turn to Russia. The Japanese would not have fought on to the bitter end if the Emperor told them not to. If the US had given the Emperor his condition, he would have surrendered, and the bomb or a bloody invasion would have been completely unnecessary. But no, the Americans wanted to show off the brutal power of their new toy to the Russians. The dropping of the bombs was a disgrace.

Depends on which side of the fence you are on. I love WW2 History.. The way the Japanese were defending the Pacific ladder from New Guinea upwards was amazing. America's position was that the use of the bomb would 'save American lives'. However, like most public statements, there were underlying factors not known to the public. The bomb was developed primarily to use against Germany and/or Russia. The Americans saw very early in 1944 on that Stalin would become an enemy once the war was finished and this was a display of power. As horrible as it was to use the bomb, the Japanese were given warnings beforehand. Truman said "If they do not not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth".. this went ignored. Hiroshima was bombed.. another warning/ulimatum was issued by the US which again was ignored. Nagasaki was bombed. The delay in the Japanese Emperor Hirohito and the War Council to react to the Potsdam Declaration cost their country severely. Remember.. if the race to develop the bomb had of been won by Germany, what do you think they would have done with it? The V2 attacks on Britain showed what the Nazi's were capable of. They were devloping the V2's expressly to tip them with a nuclear device. No country would have been safe. Then imagine had the USSR under Stalin won the race.. I shudder to think what this world would be like today. It was a terrible tragedy on humans who did not deserve to die in such a manner. What horror on those two cities. If only we could line up the war mongers and let them fight it out like in battles of ancient times without the armies.. without the weapons of mass destruction... then we might see an end to war.

Bit of both. It did stop the war, however everyone here has overlooked the long lasting radioactive effects. Many people still die or are born deformed as a restult to america's underevaluated strike. I cannot say that it was Justified and i can't say it was inhumane. You had to be one of the people approving the use of these bombs to understand the logic of this attack.

What do you think yourself? Do you think millions of people living in Hirosima and Nagasaky were guilty? And what use brough that they dead suffering ?

This question is retarded. It's like asking if the Holocaust was justified.

the a-bomb was a-ok

It was expedient and significantly better than invading Japan, for both sides. I am glad I didn't have to make that choice, though. I rather wish we'd have dropped it on Hitler's head instead.

Ask survivors who would've had to invade Japan rather than bomb it if it was justified.

I think it was justified in the sense it saved a lot more of our troops from injured or killed in a full scale invasion of Japan. I think it would have been fine to bomb Germany since they attacked first and were the main instigators of WWII. If Japan had not attacked the naval base in Pearl Harbor, I would not have agreed with the use of the a bomb. I like Japan, but they did bring it upon themselves attacking us without real provocation then not surrounding when we gave them the option. Not that I don't think standing up for themselves and refusing to back down is not natural for anyone to do. It was just foolish in this case.

Justified. It sucks that it had to happen, but it did have to happen. Pretty much everyhing about war sucks. Does anybody realize what was going to happen if Japan didn't surrender? The plan was to a-bomb the Japanese beaches to clear them for an American invasion. The location of the planned invasion was supposed to be the area where US intelligence thought that there was the least resistance. In reality, the Japs had moved most of their troops to that area just after our intel was gathered. The a-bombing would not have been efective in clearing the Japanese troops because they were just out of range. We would have landed on the beaches and been sickened by radiation poisening. The US troops that did make it through the bombing zone would have been cut to hamburger by the HUGE amount of Jap troops deployed in that area. In short, it would have been very, very tragic. Oh, and we were weeks, not years away from carrying out that plan. If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in english, thank a vet.

we were bigger than them, if they didnt want to get blown up then they shouldnt have hit us first.

If we had not used the bomb on Japan, it would have made the war go on and on. We would have eventully won but it would have cost the war too much. Japan would have been ruined. The U.S. would have been in terrible shape. And Japan would have lost probably 20 times that number of death. So although we killed about 200,000 people, we were aculy saving japanese lives.

the government might have been BUT the Emperor and his co horts called all the shots and they had no intention of giving up they where prepared to see their own people wiped out and the whole country flattened and the cost to allied troops would have been more than the rest of the pacific losses put together ...no sorry but the bombs ended it and ended it decisively with minimal losses of allied(our troops)

The whole war was both justified AND brutally inhuman. If I had been in it (my uncles were), I would have dropped it. The only people that didn't want it dropped were the ones it landed on. That's the way it seems to be with bombs...

Given my choice I would have dropped them sooner.

It wasn't justified at all. Eisenhower, MacArthur and Einstein all thought it was unnecessary - that's enough for me.

no

The Japanese would have surrendered if offered agreeable terms, instead of the US insistence on UNCONDITIONAL surrender. Everyone seems to forget this. All the Japanese wanted was a guarantee that they could keep their Emperor, which the US refused to give, though many US officials encouraged it at the time. In the end, the bombs were dropped and the Japanese were allowed to keep the Emperor, ergo, the bombs were unnecessary and unjustified.

Yes, It saved more lives than it took, it brought a cruel terrible war to an end.

It is easy to look back from our comfortable existence now and pontificate. It was a horror, and, if it could have been avoided, it would have been a good thing. But look at it through the eyes of the people who lived at the time: *there was a world war being fought on two major fronts. The Asian front was draining resources, as it was much more difficult to fight in the jungles of South East Asia and in the Islands of the Pacific. Also, Japan was close to launching an all out attack on Australia, a major ally, and in taking Hawaii, which would have given them a launchpad for attacks on the west coast of the US and Canada. Taking out Japan stopped the war in the Pacific point blank, and meant that troops could be deployed to Europe to defeat a bigger enemy, Germany. *Germany was close to developing an atom bomb itself. Had it used one on England, that would have won them the war, and they would have had no hesitation in doing so. In the end it came down to getting in first, with the minimum destruction. Two cities as opposed to millions of other lives lost in continuing battles, and perhaps losing the war on both fronts.

Of course not. It killed thousands of innocent civilians, scarred the face of the earth with the flash of atomic warfare and by ending one war, started a new war that held the entire planet in the grip of a threat of nuclear war for 50 years. Saying it ended the War is misleading. It did end the war, but it ended the war when it was already drawing to a close. Japan was failing already. To say that it's better to kill a hundred thousand innocent civilians than a thousand volunteering servicemen is the most selfish form of nationalism. Especially when a mainland invasion of Japan wouldn't have been necessary. People are people. Wrong is wrong.

its not justified. the creators of the bomb even told the president that they should give a warning and demonstration to the japanese govt to show how strong the bomb really is. if in any case, they would surrender. if they wouldnt after seeing it happen, then they would have bombed them. but president truman didnt want to do that. he wanted to be the first nation to use the atomic bomb because he wanted to feel powerful. he was selfish and ruthless. the japanese wanted to surrender before the bombing, but the russians didnt let the americans know, that is the russians fault, but why wouldnt the americans call and ask if they spoke to the japanese? why? because they didnt care at all. they killed civilians and that is illegal. truman should have ordered the atomic bomb to be dropped on military land, but he told the generals to drop it on the cities and kill thousands of innocent people that suffered 20 years later from the radiation.

No. I think that it was a scientific experiment justified by war!

Yes? It is so hard to decide and be morally correct either way. My father was recently in Japan and he went to the Atom Bomb Memorial and said that he searched all over to find any piece of information that stated that they bombed us first and never found anything! They believe that what they did is nothing compared to what WE did and that is not only wrong but makes me believe that we were justified because they would not have stopped attacking us if we did not drop the bombs. However he did find this picture of a clock that froze one minute before the bombs detonated:

After visiting Hiroshima and going to the Peace memorial, thinking about the utter destruction and reading the stories of all the CIVILIANS affected by the bombings, I would say it was not "justified" but it can be rationalized. The US spent billions of dollars to develop the bomb it would have been a waste not to test it on "real targets." They wanted to end the war quickly and influence the Soviet Union (Stalin) all in one fell swoop. It probably didn't save that many lives since Japan was almost at the point of collapse at the time and had already sued for peace through the Soviets, with the condition of retaining the Emperor.

58 people (so far) have expressed an opinion on that question: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/87475

Regardless of the answer..will it change anything?

Japanese cities were being firebombed on a daily basis. The destruction of the firebombing was devastating to Japan. Two atomic bombs were dropped and it caused the japanese to surrender but I think with the destruction of thier cities due to firebombing it was a matter of time anyway. If an invasion a gainst mainland Japan had been launched millions would have died - both japanese, americans and allies. What a terrible decision to have placed on your shoulders, kill or kill.

Yes it was.

yes it saved American Lives

No!!!

No, Never. How could some one can justify killing innocent men, women and children, what ever may be the reason! I consider use of Atomic bomb as one of the two greatest inhuman acts in the history of the mankind. The other one is the Holocaust perpetrated on the six million innocent Jews by Adolf Hitler.

killing so many people is not justified. but... Keep yourself as the president of the time,given two choices. 1)America will win,but at this rate it will take another 10 years, but it will take toll of thousands & thgousands of American soldiers. 2)Use Atomic bomb,America will win in short period. That small atomic bomb was eye opener for rest of the including America.

The choice of using the bomb was justified, it killed less people than if the war had continued without the use of the atomic bomb. The choice to use it twice was not justified, once was enough to send the message around the world the the Allies had the atomic bomb and are willing to use it. The choice of dropping A bomb on A city was not justified, dropping A bomb on AN armed forces base would be justified.

it was justified by americans. the predicted cost in lives,..was well over a million japanese and another 100.000 usa and western casualties if the war went on to japanese soil and lasted another year. it not only saves 900,000 japanese and 100,00 allies, it saved millions and millions of dollars of everyones money and a year in recovering everyones lives, worldwide.

i think we shoiuld have dropped the bomb becuz, it saved money, saved lives, and...ENDED THE WAR!!! as Harry Truman said "to shortan the war...we must use it!!!it let Japan know that we too have weapons of mass destruction and that we would use it!!!

The atomic bombings in WW2 were completely justified. These weapons were the alternatives to an all out invasion of the main islands of Japan. This invasion, OPERATION DOWNFALL would have cost a predicted half million american lives, and millions of Japanese. The Atom bombs saved many lives, while shortening the war. Many people believe that Japan was getting ready to surrender, but this is untrue. Japan was unwilling to give in to unconditional surrender. They also had hidden stores of extra planes, pilots, fuel, and weapons, that were there for the sole purpose of defense in case America invaded. The Atomic bombs were completely justified.

It was a justified. Many people do not realize that over 20 million Japanese would die and a million allies would also if America invaded Japan. Also some people do not realize that fire bombing killed more people then both atomic bombs. If people argue about the atomic bombs have all the facts.

In my opinion they would have surrendered anyway so I don´t think that it was necessary.

Did the end justify the means? Some thought so at the time; but others believed there were better (more humane) ways of demonstrating possession of nuclear technology.

In a utilitarian sense the US felt it was right in its actions.

Well they started it.

They were only an EXCUSE to test the Atom bomb. We were itching to use it. If it weren't them, it would of been someone else. I don't see how bombing innocent civilians is a moral method of winning a war.

It was war. We had a weapon. They used every weapon they had against us and they didn't show mercy to our 2,388 dead soldiers and the other 1,178 they wounded. We did the same just on a larger scale.

I think they could have found other methods of forcing Japan`s surrender. But they chose the swiftest and most effective method. Somewhat understandable after what they had been through the past couple of years.

I don't think it was necessary to use such extreme methods. Nor was their right to decide on the lives of thousands of innocent people.

No not at all. I mean it ended the war but it destroyed the landscape, leveled the city, killed hunderds of people, placed tons of uranium within the soil thus making it impossible for plant life. It was totally unnessisary. However on the positive side it saved us billions of dollars and the lives of hundreds of soldiers.

killing thousands of innocent women and children and men who have nothing to do with what leaders of countries disagree with is never justified. How would anyone feel if their family and their whole town was destroyed and effected for years and years afterwards because we were at war with another country. Innocent death on that grand of a scale is never justified regardless of whether they attacked us first or not

There will never be a definitive answer to this question. Another question is: are all countries justified to use the atomic bomb to achieve their wartime objectives? Or is this the exclusive right of the US? Perhaps the victors are the final deciders of the question. If you use the a-bomb and win, you were justified. If you use the a-bomb and lose, you are a war criminal.

The only justification I can think of is that it is likely that millions more lives would have been lost trying to end the war by conventional methods. Other than that, it is difficult to say...

Ask the men and their families who would have had to attack the Japanese homeland. The estimates for casualties of allied soldiers were in the millions. A lot of us would not be here because our grand parents and parents would probably have died in that attack. So you tell me.... They started it basically and wanted to rule the world. They did terrible things in Asia and to POWs. Bottom line, you started it, we finished it. Then poured billions of US tax payer dollars into their economy and infrastructure to bring the Japanese back into the world as an economic power.

No. It was an unnecessary and inhumane show of force

Absolutely not

No, dropping the bomb was an unprosecuted war crime. There is no question that everyone wanted the war to end at that point, and Japan was out of fuel and ships, and unable to wage war anymore. But like a kid with a quarter feeling he has to spend it, Truman just HAD to try out this new weapon to see what it could do.

no. what a horrible loss of life, with a weapon that should have never been created.

My garndpa helped build the the big boy but he said after he found out what it did he thought about how many people that they saved by stopping the americans sending in a nain land invasion on japan he was a smart man he estimated millions of men would of died. on just trying to get on their land ,

Estimates at the time were 1 million dead in the invasion. 150,000 dead with the bomb. What would you choose?

Only if they killed just as many of us in Peal Harbor... which I seriously doubt they did.

No. Understandable, but not justified.

No. >.<

Yes it was. After their attack on Pearl Harbor they deserved what they got. I understand there were innocent people but there were only innocent people at Pearl Harbor. I would have backed the decision 100% back then and I do now.

Yes, I think so. After reading history, it was more humane than a land invasion.

Even though alot of people were killed they say if they didn't dropped the bomb 10x the number of people killed could've died from years of fighting. So do you want 1 mil dead or 10 mil dead? I hate but it is reality the bomb saved more lives then killed

No

nope, that was the american government using way too much force. what did those countries get in return? they were bombed and when the war was over they were in debted to the USA.....go figure.

This is really difficult question to answer. The result in stopping the war was a good outcome, but the destruction was not a good outcome. People were fried into just their shadows - people who had no choice in the war. I also don't agree with the usage of nuclear weapons (or war in general for that matter). The Japanese were extremely harsh in their treatment of people during the war, but that was the army and the government, not the general public. I don't think I could say say it was justified, but the outcome of stopping the war was good. Australia was set to be occupied by the Japanese, and that did not happen due to the end of the war (a thing of which I am glad), but nuclear weapons leave a lasting legacy which cannot be justified. I guess I will sit on the fence on this one. Too many innocent people die in every war, due to governments who are not actually fighting themselves.

Remember Pearl Harbor and numerous other places the Japanese attacked.

At that time in a World weary of war, yes, it was justified. It shortened the war and saved American lives. Too bad for the Japanese. But war is like that. We can sit here 60 plus years later and pass judgement. But applying our 21st century ethics to a time when the World was basically on fire everywhere is revisionist as all Hell. And patently unfair. Where's the outrage over the Dresden firebombing? War is ugly. War is not kind. War should never be entered casually like we seem to do it now. But if we go to war, we should go to win. And realize that innocents will die. They always do. Thankfully the bomb was only used twice. A harsh lesson I hope we all remember and never feel the need to use it again.