SURVEY: Do you believe the using of the atomic bomb during WWII was justified?

[Cats4ever]

I reluctantly think it was justified. People then were not fully aware of the destructiveness. These bombs were small compared to those available only 5 years later. The Japanese were willing to fight to the death. POWs in Japan would have died. It is likely that the Red Army would have cleaned up the Kwangtung army reasonably easily. But it had little amphibious capability to attack the mainland. The West would not have wanted it to, in any case. Hand to hand fighting over each of the islands would certainly have resulted in massive casualties on both sides. Some of the fire bombing attacks against other Japanese cities probably had a greater death toll. These decisions were made in real time and not well after the event. Given all of that, I certainly hope there is never another N bomb used.

[biplanebluey]

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

Perhaps if we can get enough people up together we can organise a big protest march

[JAG]

My Father was an Infantry man fighting the Japanese in Burma.

Statistically, it is unlikely that he would have survived if the war had continued for another six months. I would never have been born (yes no doubt some would regard that as a blessing!). If the US had continued it's advance on the Japanese Home Islands , both the US and the Japanese military and civilian casualties would have been horrendous.

Atomic weapons are truly awful, but I'm firmly convinced that their use on Japan was the lesser of two evils.

[HooHaa]

a little late on the uptake, its hardly relevant now.

[Ulysses G.]

It would have even more justified to have used the bomb on the Nazis, but they had the good sense to capitulate completely and agree to an unconditional surrender. The Japanese kept resisting.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Basil B]

I hope the A bomb is never used again...

I wish it was never invented...

Used on Japan???

It did shorten the war... And save many lives.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Basil B

[granuaile]

NO!

My father was a soldier fighting in the Philippines at that time, and this was an area of (amicable) disagreement before this. Japan was already considering surrender, and the argument that an invasion of Japan would happen and result in massive allied casualties is not accurate. Even if it were a weapon of such magnitude and the resulting civilian deaths cannot be justified. My father was a soldier but these bombs indiscriminately killed and destroyed, and it set off the development of even worse weapons that we see now...

[NickJ]

Believe me The Movies place Japan in a semi-favorable light. The true horror is still unknown by most.

Japan would have turned into a long and bloody guerilla war had the bombs not dropped.....Look how the defended Iwo and Okinawa.......They had to face absolute desruction.

[English 1]

Those who voted that it was NOT justified are no doubt ignorant of the Barbaric Sadistic Cruelty

which the PoW's where subjected to by the Japanese until they died of Starvation, Illness and Beatings building the Burma Death Railway.

Go to Kantanaburi and in the Commonwealth War Grave cemeteries you will see the ages of those poor souls starting at .....18 Years.

[ravip]

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.

Well... so all is fine with war?

It is a strange mindset of the 'developed' - I am always right and you are wrong.

That's the way it still goes...

[Jingthing]

It was hard for me to vote on this because yes, there were strong arguments for it, but also the war could have been ended without using it. Either way, lots of people still would have died ... just a matter of who and how.

A way I've thought about this as well is about the bigger picture of our species developing these weapons.

It was inevitable that they would be used at least once.

So that was it.

The challenge now is to prevent the next use.

I don't like the odds.

[wabothai]

Too bad they did not take out the aggressive leadership both of Japan and Germany before and during ww2.

A civilian population without any defence was taken out in stead.

Thus NO.

[jtTamad]

Easier said than done.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jtTamad]

Seems like they might have invited some top nipponese to a demonstration, but I've heard why it wasn't practicable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tonawatchee]

How nice, after seventy years, to be able to relax and safely contemplate the moral choice as to whether or not the atomic bombs should have been dropped. Flash yourself back to those final months in WW2 when it looked possible to finally wrap that war up and I believe you'd agree it was the correct decision.

[Javabear]

I keep seeing all these comments about the Japanese trying to surrender. Yes they were trying to surrender but they wanted to dictate terms. That's not how we did things back then. They made war on us and the only solution was total and unconditional surrender. Now our leaders are such pussies that they won't allow the military to fight and actually win a war.

[willyumiii]

Since the Japanese had vowed to fight to the last man, woman and child, a land invasion would have cost far more lives on both sides.

The fact that it was necessary to nuke two cities before the Japanese surrendered proves how strong their convictions were.

One city would have been more than enough for most countries!

[Jonmarleesco]

70 years after the event. As they say, hindsight is a wonderful thing; and hindsight might still favour the A-bomb's use in 1945. But whether it does or not, few people alive today are in a position to say what they would have done (given the opportunity) then; and none alive today suffered under Japanese brutality.

[lostoday]

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.

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

[willyumiii]

a little late on the uptake, its hardly relevant now.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed.......ever hear that one?

[BuddhistVirus]

No

[willyumiii]

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.

This is what un-nerves many when having this discussion... The horror inflicted on civilian populations on both sides of the conflict is often overlooked... Everyone remembers the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan, while no one speaks of the fire bombing of Japanese cities... On March 10, 1945, the US fire-bombed Tokyo, destroying 41 sq km of the city and killing over 100,000 civilians... We often hear about the Dresden fire bombing, but not the 67 Japanese cities the US fire bombed at the end of WWII...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly-wwii-u-s-firebombing-raids-on-japanese-cities-largely-ignored/#.VdE9fFOqqko

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/02/15/commentary/tokyo-firebombing-and-unfinished-u-s-business/#.VdE-7lOqqko

It is true that Japanese citizens didn't kill anyone, although, the same could be said for the 30,000,000+ Chinese that were slaughtered by the Japanese in Manchuria...

Only citizens become soldiers.

Soldiers kill.

Are you no longer a citizen after you become a soldier?

Citizens can also stop wars.

American citizens stopped the Vietnam war.

[Nowisee]

dropping those bombs (any bombs) on civilian populated areas can never be justified. all the collateral damage that happened and continues to happen can never be justified.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Scott

[willyumiii]

I agree it was justified for many of the reasons listed in posts here.

What no one has mentioned is the "added value" of the two bombs dropped.

It was the first and only time the world has witnessed the use of such weapons on a civilian population.

That alone has been a major deterrent from these weapons being used again.

70 years later, it is still a very good deterrent.

No sane person would ever choose to use one again.

[manarak]

Yes - under the assumption I know all relevant facts.

[slipperylobster]

it sure got their attention...

and ended the whole thing.

I studied Japanese language (and lived near Hiroshima for 5 years..went windsurfing at Miyajima). Japanese are now wonderful people. Fun to talk to, and, for the most part...very polite and congenial. Pretty girls used to beg us to take them on the US military bases to dance at the clubs. They would pay for everything. If it wasn't so expensive, I would choose to stay in the area where I was. Beautiful towns and villages, when you get away from the big city areas. Love the trains. Peace Park is a beautiful place, and I would sit and reflect there. There was no hatred. It was sad to read all the letters posted in the museum.

It was all sad...WWII...as all wars are. It ended...and that is that.

Edited August 17, 2015 by slipperylobster

[elgordo38]

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.

Then why drop 2 bombs? to double prove? You had Japan on their knees ready to surrender as stated so why chop their head off? The B52's were already carpet bombing Tokyo at will so why the overkill? I can see saving American's soldiers lives but really killing all those innocent people to show Russia how powerful you are? With all their spies they more than likely knew all about the A bomb and more than likely had the instructions on how to build one. Whats the point?

[lostoday]

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.

Then why drop 2 bombs? to double prove? You had Japan on their knees ready to surrender as stated so why chop their head off? The B52's were already carpet bombing Tokyo at will so why the overkill? I can see saving American's soldiers lives but really killing all those innocent people to show Russia how powerful you are? With all their spies they more than likely knew all about the A bomb and more than likely had the instructions on how to build one. Whats the point?

They did not surrender after the first one. Aug, 6th first bomb. Aug 9th second bomb. I guess they might have dropped three if they had three but they only had two bombs. Surrender Aug 15th.

Edited August 17, 2015 by lostoday

[elgordo38]

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.

Yes there were atrocities but were they committed by the innocent people that died? War is hell but there should be reasoning involved not just victory parades.

[chuckd]

I'll make my contribution while Blitzkrieg Bob gets his thoughts together.

I lost an older brother on Guadalcanal, my father was in the merchant marines (too old to enlist) and I was alive during all of it.

I remember going on board the USS Comfort, a hospital ship that was struck by a kamikaze pilot in 1945. It penetrated the operating room and I vividly remember walking through the operating room which had not been cleaned up totally. It is still etched in my eight year old memory.

I remember VJ day in LA as a joyous occasion with everybody celebrating the unconditional surrender of the Japanese.

As I recall everybody knew there had been some super weapon dropped that made the Japanese surrender and nobody cared. All anybody cared about was the war was over and thousands of American troops would still be alive and returning home to their loved ones.

No more bloody beaches, Iwo Jima's, Okinawa's or in my family's memories, no more Guadalcanal's.

It was a different time with different perspectives and, quite frankly, a different species of Americans.

In his book Tom Brokaw described them this way:

"it is, I believe, the greatest generation any society has ever produced." He argued that these men and women fought not for fame and recognition, but because it was the "right thing to do."

Enough of that generation had already died doing the right thing. It was time to stop it.