Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good thing?

now i don't know how much on this topic you all know but allow me to enlighten you

1. if it wasn't for the nukes there would have to be a mainland invation of Japan which had an estimated 10 million US casualties and god knows how many japanese (the japanese even had plans to arm school girls with spears in case of city invation and army losses)

2. the bombs only killed (wkipidea said) 130,000-250,000 which is almost the exact same amount that died in one day due to a normal US bombing raid on Japan's major cities... just to put it into perspective

3. japan's surrender helped not only save many American and japanese lives but also chinese lives due to the unbelievable attrocities commited by the Japanese including Unit 731

4. the japanese were incredibly brutal fanatics not only suiside bombing and charging machine guns with pitchforks but their own population was told to kill themselves rather than being captured (we have video of this) and i cannot imagine the scale on which it would be in a mainland invation

  • yes
    29% (5)59% (13)46% (18)Vote
  • no
    71% (12)41% (9)54% (21)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
Updates:
weird people still choose no... one of you care to explain why?

the bombs saved MILLIONS
also if someone wants the MHO then tell me a good joke

0|0
5|12

Most Helpful Girl

  • No it was the leader of Japan's fault at that time not the civilians. From what I learned in school, he was too stubborn to surrender. I don't know if it was true or not, history isn't always accurate.

    0|0
    0|0
    • that's correct you will now win the MHO simply because you are the first woman on this to not say something completely retarded

      and the fact that you question its accuracy is also nice bonus points!!

What Girls Said 4

  • Weird people choose yes.

    American scientist just wanted to test their bombs. If Germany hadn't already capitulated months before they finished the bombs, they would have been dropped on Germany instead of Japan.
    They killed mostly civilians, not soldiers.

    5|1
    1|1
    • Show All
    • yawn. you've proved nothing but your ignorance. goodbye.

    • wow... guess that is as close as i'll get to you saying ok... well hopefully you at least won't try to argue your knowledge of history again

      and before you go please read over what you said and then ask who is the ignorant one

      "Well, tbh, I don't remember every detail in history class I had in high school, but I don't remember anything about the battles in North Africa where the US fought.
      Russia was there from the beginning, but they had to win the battles in Germany first to get to Spain or are you suggesting they shall travel through the sea first?"

      that was the winner here... not a single correct fact there haha

  • As @bubble_tea mentioned it was just to test out the bomb. The Japanese were actually very close to surrendering anyway.

    1|0
    0|0
    • I'm glad you also paid attention in history class ^^

    • Show All
    • @cavmanier https://imgur.com/1kEN0fP
      Russia sent the largest troops by numbers from the very beginning. And if you look at the number of casualties, they were the biggest losers in that world war, followed by the Chinese. But nobody cares about either nationality, since they're communists or something I guess.
      Thank you for teaching me that the US did not rush in at the end. I did not expect my teacher to be biased. He didn't say what Russians were planning next, but Japan was starving anyway with all the embargos put on them for years.

    • sure if you understand the military only wanted to end the war the only "test" again was the test to see if it would make japan surrender which it did

      and of course they were unnecessary we could have totally lost millions of US lives while the entire country of japan from the soldiers to the women and children fought us and killed themselves... totally! a better scenario... we may have actually lost due to US moral being so low from massive casualties in germany it'd be like Vietnam were the war is lost due to civilians ending it

      and omg woman... that entire second paragraph terrified me... what in the fuck are you talking about?

      jesus christ i won't even start on that PLEASE go learn some history like pretty please... and until that day never say a word about history again

      please don't say something else you have officially lost the right to be considered correct in any sense

  • It wasn't a good thing, because the bombs gave off radiation, and killed thousands of people (including those affected by the radiation).

    0|0
    0|0
    • yeah that's what those numbers are... estimates of overall dead

      so you think we shouldn't have done it though?

    • Show All
    • you contradict yourself a lot though

      sounds like you never really thought deeply about issues like these

    • @Neko_Chan

      Well as long as you realize that in the fight against ISIS you are on the side of ISIS.

  • This is like asking if 9/11 was a good thing.

    2|0
    1|2

What Guys Said 12

  • It wasn't what happened on those days but the aftermath it introduced atomic weapons into warfare which was a massive step backwards to barbarism.

    3|1
    0|1
    • actually it was a massive leap forward... nuclear technology is our future power source and a current one

      also the advent of nuclear weapons has actually caused a global peace of larger nations for a very long time now

    • Didn't mean to downvote

    • ^ haha nice guy commenter

      i'll vote up for a balance

  • Yes and no.
    As an isolated event it was not a good thing. The attacks are the single attacks with the highest civilian casualties EVER recorded in modern history. Let that sink in.

    However that also displayed how strong atomic bombs are, and in adition to your arguements it also showed its power to the world. The result? A nuclear arms race, as well as a cold war. And a terror balance.
    It might have made the cold war go even colder, but without the bombs, the cold war could have gone hot. Why? Because of the threat of anihilation! Because of the threat of massive retalliation, and the knowledge that if even a single bomber in the fleet of say 40 (to take an example) makes it to the town, the entire town will be reduced to rubble in one single blast.
    THAT kept the finger off the trigger for both the russians and the americans. At least when it came to directly attacking eachother.

    0|0
    0|0
    • thus i would say it was a good thing in the sense that it displayed the killing power of the nuke in a "controlled" enviroment.
      What if it hadn't been used? Would USA and russia be quicker to use it during the cold war? Highly likely! And knowing how close they were during the cold war, chances are they would've fallen.
      If you think hiroshima and nagasaki were bad, imagine thousands of them aimed at the soviet union and the mainland USA. You can't shoot down that many bombers, so at least some would hit.
      Millions would die, and a full scale war would erupt. Not to mention the bombs would cause a massive fallout.

      So the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs were good in the sense that it made the threat of nuclear bombs more physical and real; it essentialy manifested the threat of nukes. And that was enough to make the cold war stay cold, because everybody saw what they could do.

  • For basically the reasons you stated, I believe the bombs were a necessary tragedy. I wouldn't call it good thing, but I'd rather put it as the best option the US had at the time. The bombs saved lives by ending lives, so it is difficult to look back now and say it was worth it. However, if we put ourselves in that time frame, I think it was a good decision. The radiation was kind of terrible after, but at the least the US tried to help Japan out after it.

    Here are some jokes. I didn't make them up. I'm sorry for however many Japanese people I offend with the first one (I like you Japanese people, I swear!)

    Who made the first batch of rice krispies treats?
    The Atomic Bomb
    ---------------------------
    "I'll stop at nothing to avoid using negative numbers."
    ---------------------------
    A man was walking his dog through the graveyard when he saw another man crouching behind a gravestone.
    "Morning!" he said.
    The other man replies, "No, just having a shit."

    0|0
    1|0
    • by the way, I am only putting jokes as requested by the asker. I'm not trying to offend anyone or whatnot. If I did, I apologize.

    • the jokes were nice lol

      but actually that wasn't meant for this question but another one

      and yes it was nice that US helped all the countries defeated rebuild

  • No part of WWI WWII was good. The detonation of those devices was a last resort to save lifes that would have been lost. But it is so sad the hundreds of thousands that died and ended up with severe radiation burns/issues. Anytime you have that I wouldn't call it a good thing. Nuclear devices are nothing to play with. I hope something like that doesn't happen again it was a dark time for the world and had to be a hard decision to make (dropping the bombs)

    1|0
    1|0
    • well if dropping a bomb or any amount of people killed saves even more that died it is definitely a good thing (relatively)

      also those radiation affects are a whole lot better than having your home broken into while soldiers rape and kill your wife and kids

    • I am thinking of it as a more worldwide effect. The devices killed a lot but there were a lot more lasting effects that caused other death. Not referring to cancer from dose of the radiation either. Also the fallout that was dispersed worldwide.

  • Yea it was a good thing so those japanese would stop raping bombing and killing tens of millions of innocent Asians like my fellow Chinese

    0|1
    4|1
    • love how three girls down voted this probably among the same ones who think this is the same as 9/11

  • Yes, they were. There were innocent victims (children, for example), but they should blame the Japanese government of the time and its supporters.

    2|0
    1|0
    • the US TOLD japan about all the cities it was going to drop this weapon on by dropping pamphlets on the cities saying to evacuate

      the US did not bomb these places because of high population but because they were untouched cities with high amounts of military activity and recourses

      also children and civilians die all the time in war... not like the US told german civilians to leave town before they flattened all of Europe yet you never hear about people bitching about the morality of that one

    • i actually have a buddy who told me about how his grandfather sat on a hill and overmatched his entire city burn to the ground

      supposedly he thought it was really cool (was a kid)

    • oh sorry it was a german city

  • Very interesting question, I would begin to say that I am learning Asian history at university and I can try to make a detailed answer:
    First of alll let's begin woith your question, was bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs a good thing?
    In my opinion every war is a bad thing and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is not good too, so I answered no.
    Did it saved million of people?
    Actually is not easy to prove it, because we should to go back in the past and try to not use atomic bombs to see what would have really happened. For that we should consider also that the Russians declared war on Japan the 9 August some hours before USA bombed Nagasaki and Russians were preparing to invade main Japanese territory.
    So why USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
    Of course if Japan surrended it was better for American, they can save resources and soldiers, and they would avoid that Russian could occupy part of Japan, making it easier for Americans to occupy Japan (if Japan didn't surrender probably now it would be split in two like Korea). But I don't trust that American were concerned to save Japanese lives, in facts Amirca were aiming in making as many civil victims as they can, the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were around 200'000, it's true that these two cities had many military facilities, but Americans also bombed several other Japanese cities making huge damages, for those air raids were used fire bombs because were very effective on Japanese homes (most of them were built in wood) and the victims are estimated between 250'000 and 900'000 civilians, US Aviation General Curtis LeMay that was in charge during air raids on Japan, said: Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal. Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier.
    Did American want to test atomic bomb on Japan?
    Difficult to say, it's true that other test were made before bombing Japan, and that scientist were aware of the power of the bomb, but it is also true that it was never tried on a real target.
    Did USA wanted to throw atomic bombs on Germany if they didn't surrended?
    There's no evidence that a plan of bombing Germany were made, but there also is no evidence that USA didn't think about it.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Well I had to summarize a lot, but what I wanted to say is that looking the events it is more brobable that USA wanted to accellerate the surrender of Japan mainly because they didn't want the Russians begin the invasion on Japanese territory and lose full control over Japan (as I said before see the Korean example, but also Germany during cold war)
      sources:
      https://en. wikiquote. org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay
      https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Results
      https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
      http://blog. nuclearsecrecy. com/2013/10/04/atomic-bomb-used-nazi-germany/
      https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
      http://www. scribd. com/doc/261160440/Mapping-Armageddon-The-Cartography-of-Ruin-in-Occupied-Japan-PDF

  • They should have dropped the bombs over a remote military base to show the capability. The second bomb was probably unnecessary as the information about Hiroshima was still being processed.

    1|0
    0|0
    • they told civilians to evacuate and they bombed cities that had high military value

      also the info wasn't being processed they knew about it the day it happened they just wouldn't surrender so we did it again then they immediately surrendered

  • A good thing? No
    A necessary thing? Most likely, yes.

    1|0
    1|0
    • why not a good thing?

      we did not start the war

    • Show All
    • Just because we didn't start the war doesn't mean what we did is a good thing. Yes there were battle plans and they hypothesized the amount of lives lost from invading mainland Japan would get more people killed than the nukes.

    • oh well i mean yes i agree when you take away the situation US was put into it is still human loss

      but counting on the situation the US was forced into i'd say it was good

      i mean if sacrificing 10 virgin children would save a billion lives by god do it! yes it is bad but if forced into a situation you choose the lesser of two evils

      i guess i just said it was evil which is contradictory but fuck it

  • I only say yes because it probably prevented more nukes from being used in the cold war.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes, it was horrible, but it was good due to the reasons mentioned above, but it also helped us predict how much devastation it could cause and how dangerous they really were. So i think it made countries reconsider using them,

    0|0
    2|0
    • YES imagine if these super small nukes were never used and the first ones ever used were MIRV's of today's weapons

      we would have killed Millions!

  • Re: point 2. The bombing raid casualties were so high because the US firebombed Japan. At the time most buildings were wooden.

    0|0
    1|0
    • well yeah i could go into the specifics but who cares? most people know or care anything of history anyways

    • I agree that the nukes ultimately saved millions of lives through ending the conflict though. however the American people now carry the burden of the long term effects of the radiation that the world can quite plainly see. A precedent has now also been set that 'it's ok to use nukes'.

      Maybe not in the next 5 years, but One Day, nuclear warheads will fall into the hands of extremists who will wreak havoc and could quire feasibly kill hundreds of millions of people. Now THAT is a scary thought

Loading...