August is the anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you believe that the use of the bombs was justified?

Please feel free to post a comment.

Is site traffic slow? why would you post such a topic/poll???

It's a fair topic especially since it was VJ day yesterday.

I wasn't there.

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

In that sense then perhaps it was still justified.

I put a hesitant "yes".

I'm allowing that the times were different. Knowledge of the full implications were not widely known, but the rationale of saving lives in the long run seemed right at the time. The nation was justified, but the few men who had a good idea of the full implications were dastardly cowards and utterly despicable.

Should The Bomb be used now...different story and absolutely unjustified by whoever upon whoever.

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

In that sense then perhaps it was still justified.

I see your rationale, but think a bit deeper......if it was indeed a demonstration to deter the Russians, then it was despicable and the worst war crime in history.

It's like I have a feud with the guy across the street. It could get nasty, and a lot of people will get killed, so I deter him by killing my next door neighbours, just to show him that I'm a badass.

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

In that sense then perhaps it was still justified.

in what sense?

IMO and the opinion of historians not justified as the best option towards Japanese pacification.

as in the title of this OP ,

perhaps?

it did help contain Soviet expansion ambitions and save Europe from WWII part two

it turned what could had being a Hot war to the infamous cold war.

In the sense that it was used as leverage to help contain Soviet expansion and avoided a "hot" war!

Nowadays it is more or less accepted that the reason given at the time which was the inevitable high body count that an invasion would have resulted in, was indeed a political message just for public consumption, Japan was surrounded and could have been starved into submission without any need for a military invasion against a defended country.

However the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan a week or so earlier and was advancing across Mongolia quickly and would have had no such qualms about body count if they had got into a position to invade Japan. Also the relationship between the UK/US and the Soviets was already degrading in Europe and as mentioned above a demonstration of the power of the atomic option was required. In fact Stalin already knew about the Manhattan project as the Soviets had spies embedded in the project but was in no position at that stage to counter such a threat.

In this context the two atomic explosions were more of a political act than an act of war and any justification must be in the political arena

In the sense that it was used as leverage to help contain Soviet expansion and avoided a "hot" war!

Yea in that sense perhaps it was.

In my opinion reprehensible, but we are so far removed it is easy for as to moralize

but were Japanese lives less valuable than western lives? or was this an accounting problem

so many Japanese lives for so many European lives

YES

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

In that sense then perhaps it was still justified.

I see your rationale, but think a bit deeper......if it was indeed a demonstration to deter the Russians, then it was despicable and the worst war crime in history.

It's like I have a feud with the guy across the street. It could get nasty, and a lot of people will get killed, so I deter him by killing my next door neighbours, just to show him that I'm a badass.

I'm afraid your analogy doesn't work very well for me because it's nowhere near a parallel to what actually happened and why, mostly it's a matter of scale and context. Had you said neighbor (singular), one who had killed some of your relatives previously, then yes, it would act as a deterrent to the thug (presuming that's what he was). But back to Russia and history perhaps: I think it was clear that Russia harbored expansionist tendencies towards the end of WWII and as previously discussed, Japan was a likely target. Perhaps more importantly, had Russia been allowed to invade Russia the death toll would certainly have been much higher than any resulting from the atom bomb.

There were so many important and decisive battles throughout history of men kind, why is this one more important than any of the others? just because they dropped a nuclear devise on the japs? There were many precedents whereby unconventional weapons were used in the battle fields,...

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

In that sense then perhaps it was still justified.

I see your rationale, but think a bit deeper......if it was indeed a demonstration to deter the Russians, then it was despicable and the worst war crime in history.

It's like I have a feud with the guy across the street. It could get nasty, and a lot of people will get killed, so I deter him by killing my next door neighbours, just to show him that I'm a badass.

I'm afraid your analogy doesn't work very well for me because it's nowhere near a parallel to what actually happened and why, mostly it's a matter of scale and context. Had you said neighbor (singular), one who had killed some of your relatives previously, then yes, it would act as a deterrent to the thug (presuming that's what he was). But back to Russia and history perhaps: I think it was clear that Russia harbored expansionist tendencies towards the end of WWII and as previously discussed, Japan was a likely target. Perhaps more importantly, had Russia been allowed to invade Russia the death toll would certainly have been much higher than any resulting from the atom bomb.

if the Japanese were allowed to surrender to the US and keep the emperor, as they were allowed to do after the drop of the atomic bombs, the Russians would not be able to invade Japan with out declaring war on the US

Then the bomb could have being dropped on the appropriate parties,and resolved the issue once and for all.

Instead of maintaining the post WWII status quo and the ensuing cold war.

Difficult to say as we were not there and our opinions are out of context

I'd heard before that the Japanese wanted to surrender, but that doesn't really wash. It probably saved more lives as a deterrent to Russia than it did stopping WW2. I'd say, in hindsight, after learning of the atrocities committed by Japan, the American populace would agree.

If necessary equates with justified, then I'd say yes. War is hell.

No as the Japanese had been trying to surrender and it was only used to prove a point. Disgusting.

2 wrongs do not make a right.

I'd heard before that the Japanese wanted to surrender, but that doesn't really wash. It probably saved more lives as a deterrent to Russia than it did stopping WW2. I'd say, in hindsight, after learning of the atrocities committed by Japan, the American populace would agree.

If necessary equates with justified, then I'd say yes. War is hell.

I'd heard before that the Japanese wanted to surrender, but that doesn't really wash

why doesn't wash?

f necessary equates with justified, then I'd say yes. War is hell.

the necessity is debatable, why does your pinion fall on the necessary side ?

Many historians said Japan wanted to surrender before the bombs only the status of the emperor was the problem. You might justify the first bomb but the second no way was more a demonstration for the Russians to show we can do it multiple times. (and remember history is written by the victor so if there are still many historians writing this despite the allies winning there is a good chance its true)

Was the bombing of London a war crime.. YES, was the firebombing of Dresden a war crime YES, in my opinion and the UN and human rights laws the targeting of civilians is always a war crime. But all sides did it so does that mean they were all justified or all war crimes.

I just think that in wars war crimes are committed by all sides, now maybe less as then. So if all sides do it is it then still a war crime or acceptable ?

So I am not 100% sure on this one myself.. first bomb I could defend second.. not really.

While Soviet Russia did not have the resources or capacity to pursue an atomic bomb, Nazi Germany tried it but gave it up, and fascist Japan researched it but also quit on it.

The United States was the only country that had the resources to successfully pursue the project to a timely completion. Long before the A-Bombs were used, World War II had already become the worst conflagration of history, the world ablaze.

Dropping the bombs ended it, the whole of it, the worst beast to ever come screaming out of hades.

Neither is it an afterword to point out that as the war was being concluded the world learned the conflagration had also been a holocaust.

It was a war and it was a really big war. The Japanese had been a formidable enemy. Ending the war completely was the best outcome. It's unfortunate for the losers that things don't work out very well for them, but that's the way it goes.

While Soviet Russia did not have the resources or capacity to pursue an atomic bomb, Nazi Germany tried it but gave it up, and fascist Japan researched it but also quit on it.

The United States was the only country that had the resources to successfully pursue the project to a timely completion. Long before the A-Bombs were used, World War II had already become the worst conflagration of history, the world ablaze.

Dropping the bombs ended it, the whole of it, the worst beast to ever come screaming out of hades.

Neither is it an afterword to point out that as the war was being concluded the world learned the conflagration had also been a holocaust.

I don't think dropping the bomb ended it, it was over before the bomb was dropped.

Both Germany Italy and Japan were defeated.

The question is was the bomb necessary? and if so why

I am of the opinion that the Russians should had being allowed to play their hand, and if necessary drop the bomb on them.

The Japanese were savages and ruthless they started the war with the USA and the US finished it in style, the bombing took them to their knee's and they quickly surrendered and the War was over.

It also serves as a message and detterant to any other nation that wants to pick a fight with the worlds strongest power

I will always remember the movie TORA TORA TORA when the Japanese officer after bombing Pearl Harbor say oh god what have we done

And he was right and they paid a terrible price for their action but also do not forget the vicious and ruthless way they treated captors the Japanese have a history of it and the bombing of Nagasaki put them in their place for the last 70 plus years.

The Japanese were savages and ruthless they started the war with the USA and the US finished it in style, the bombing took them to their knee's and they quickly surrendered and the War was over.

It also serves as a message and detterant to any other nation that wants to pick a fight with the worlds strongest power

I will always remember the movie TORA TORA TORA when the Japanese officer after bombing Pearl Harbor say oh god what have we done

And he was right and they paid a terrible price for their action but also do not forget the vicious and ruthless way they treated captors the Japanese have a history of it and the bombing of Nagasaki put them in their place for the last 70 plus years.

This is what happens when one learns about history from the movies.

At the time and believing it would save allied soldier's lives I would have supported the bomb. The second bomb just seemed like revenge.

I believe if this vote were confined to those alive at the time, excluding Japanese the vote would be overwhelmingly yes

It is good that younger generations are more moderate, or are they I think the majority would execute those terrorists who behead their victims, I also think the Japanese executed many prisoners

I believe if this vote were confined to those alive at the time, excluding Japanese the vote would be overwhelmingly yes

It is good that younger generations are more moderate, or are they I think the majority would execute those terrorists who behead their victims, I also think the Japanese executed many prisoners

They all committed war crimes, from the movies i was led to believe for instance the Germans were evil and the Americans angels. Later when i was a bit older i saw documentaries it became clear they both executed other soldiers as it was easier as taking care of them and guarding them. This were US soldiers saying they did this (so the truth)

All sides are bad in wars

I have yet to see Japanese civilians kill soldiers, if the bombs were used exclusively on soldiers it would have been a totally different story. To punish civilians for what their army did is not fair.

I put a hesitant "yes".

I'm allowing that the times were different. Knowledge of the full implications were not widely known, but the rationale of saving lives in the long run seemed right at the time. The nation was justified, but the few men who had a good idea of the full implications were dastardly cowards and utterly despicable.

Should The Bomb be used now...different story and absolutely unjustified by whoever upon whoever.

You would not have been so hesitant if you had been in one of their prisoner of war camps

those who know something about the subject know that the Japaneses were desperately trying to surrender, the sticking point was the status of the emperor. Anyone who will say that dropping the bomb saved american lives from having to invade japan is wrong, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

The bomb was dropped more as a demonstration to the Russians , than a pacification tool towards the Japanese. and as such was a war crime.

Your assertion is only half correct...

The Japanese military command would not allow the Emperor to surrender... It was not until the Russians upheld their commitment made during the Potsdam Conference to invade Manchuria did the Japanese military command realize that all was lost and capitulated to surrender negotiations... This was after both atomic bombs were dropped on Japan... They knew that if the Russians and Chinese were to invade Japan from the north, genocide would be inflicted on the civilian population, just like Japan did in Manchuria...