Do you think Japan deserved that atomic bomb?

Do you think Japan deserved that atomic bomb by USA in 1945? What are your thoughts on that matter?

Updates:
Why is there no even single Japanese person on this question thread, but only americans... Maybe there is no japanase people on this website. I also want to hear opinions of japanese people on this matter. Not from just one side.

0|0
7|33

Most Helpful Girl

  • Considering that the other option called ''Operation Downfall'' would have been even worse (an straight forward invasion of Japan, which meant probably an eradication of the Japanese culture and 1 million US soldiers dead plus other allies) and they weren't going to surrender when it has been offered a couple times to sign an unconditional surrender treaty, I guess Japan had it coming.

    During war, you just forget about everything and all you think about is defeating your enemy that's threatening your people.

    1|1
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

  • Deserve? We can perhaps discuss whether the bombs were necessary (which I believe they certainly weren't) but deserve is yet another level. Anyone who honestly thinks that these innocent civilians deserved to lose their children, their moms and dads etc. is a fucking asshole and potentially a psychopath.

    But considering the past 60 years of US history, it wasn't really that surprising that Americans still today think it was totally okay to throw down those bombs. It's the same with all the other bullshit America has done in the past decades. There's always some stupid explanation that goes like "it was simply necessary to do this". Bush told the world that "it was necessary to attack Iraq". Unfortunately the world already knew at this point that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Yet, most Americans didn't really give a shit. Cuz hey, bombing is so much fun if you're not the one being bombed.
    Also, I'm so sick of people saying stuff like "it's war, so you can do whatever the fuck you want". Obviously these people have never heard of the UN charta for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Just because you're fighting with your neighbor doesn't mean you can throw acid in his face. Or just because you're really pissed at your girlfriend doesn't mean you can pour burning hot oil over her. There's things you just don't know. One of them is spraying chemical weapons on your enemies as Bashar al-Assad did in Syria. Another one is bombing civilians with nuclear bombs.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 6

  • No they did not.

    2|2
    0|0
  • I think it was the best option to end the war swiftly. By the way, the USA warned Japan about the bombs like twice or so before and after the first bomb was dropped, but Japan refused to surrender. After the second bomb was dropped, Japan surrendured.

    2|1
    0|0
  • Not really. Not anymore than the UK/Vatican/Israel/US do. They've done crimes a million times worse than Japan has ever done. They nuked Japan to keep them under control.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Ever Hear of Unit 731,
      It was the Japanese medical experimentation unit.
      They cut apart living, men, women sometimes pregnant, and children for 'medical science'
      They were just as bad if not worse than the nazis

    • Oh I have no doubt they did evil things. But Japan looks like an angel compared to the atrocities the above mentioned people have done and CONTINUE to do.

    • Pretend you are the President of the United States in July of '45. The bomb has been successfully tested. General Marshall looks to you and says, "Madam President, what are your orders?"

      How do you respond?

  • Of course they didn't. No one deserves an atomic bomb dropped on them. It'd be bad enough if they dropped it on just one place, but 2 places? No one deserves that.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Japan did have it coming. They bombed our harbor for no reason. Also they wouldn't surrender when they had the chance. America gave them every opportunity to surrender

    0|0
    0|0
    • Do you even know about the fire bombing raids on Japan before Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

      www.historylearningsite.co.uk/.../

    • Show All
    • @Bluemax
      in my opinion Truman mainly wanted to convince Stalin that he had many.

    • The fire bombing raids had already destroyed many cities.

What Guys Said 32

  • You have to take in consideration the entire historical context. The Empire of Japan attacked the United States and started that war with us. We didn't attack them. They were a fanatical enemy. They were known for kamikaze pilots and suicide charges in battle. The American forces had to fight battle after battle to take island after island leading up to an invasion of the mainland islands of Japan. The projections of the casualties to take the main islands were in the hundreds of thousands. It was a terrible decision that President Truman was faced with. But his decision saved American lives. Remember, the enemy was so fanatical that even after the first bomb was dropped they didn't surrender. Japan started the war. The U. S. finished it.

    3|3
    0|0
  • War is always ugly. If you ever attempt to stab someone, don't whine if the pull out a gun and shoot you in the head.

    0|5
    0|0
  • I don't think one can "deserve" an atom bomb to be dropped on them. No country deserves thousands of people to be killed.

    However, I believe that the dropped bomb was the best choice out of a horrible situation. I imagine that if the war continued on, many more lives than those lost from the bomb (s) would be taken. It's easy to look back now and speculate about how they should've gone one way or the other, but I think it was the right decision from the few remaining overall.

    3|0
    0|0
    • An alternative that would have worked would have been to continue the war with Japan, but without an invasion.
      With an Allied (mainly US) naval blockade, Japan would have been deprived of all fossil fuels and metals. Within a few months (perhaps weeks), civilisation woul have collapsed.
      At the same time, spray defoliant chemicals on everything that looked like a food crop.
      Millions would have starved to death.
      Sit and wait for the Japanese to (a) beg to surrender, or (b) cease to exist.
      Either outcome would have been acceptable to me.

    • @cth96190 Perhaps but US was already pissed off and hated Japan at that moment after the Pearl Harbor sneak attack.

  • Yes, Japan had it coming.
    A war between Japan, the British Empire and the USA was engineered by Roosevelt as a pretext to get the USA involved in the war in Europe.
    For those whose knowledge of history is confined to the drivel that is produced by Hollyweird, here is what happened.
    Japan's military-industrial complex set Japan on a course of imperialist expansion during the 1930s. First there was an invasion of Manchuria for its resources, then of China for its resources.
    Why resources? Because Japan does not have any metals or fossil fuels of its own. Everything has to be imported.
    Manchuria's vast coal deposits were of particular interest to Japan.
    The USA was (and remains) a puppet of the Rothschild banking empire, which was fighting the Third Reich.
    Why?
    Because Hitler nationalised the banks and freed Germany from Rothschild control. That was the real reason behind World War Two.
    FDR and the rest of the US government, which had been (and remains) under global banker control since 1913, needed a way to get the American people angry enough to support a war against Germany.
    So there was Japan, doing some truly horrendous things in Asia.
    The FDR administration placed upon Japan trade embargoes that put the Japanese in a position in which they had two choices. Which were:
    (a) Do nothing and within 18 months there would be a complete collapse of the Japanese state and mass starvation, due to the oil embargo.
    (b) Further imperialist expansion through Asia, to secure the oil fields in what was then the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia).
    To make the seizure of the oil fields possible, the Japanese had to render the USA unable to stop them for at least six months, preferably a year.
    That was what Pearl Harbour was about. Admiral Yamamoto, who was given the job of planning the attack, counselled the government and the Emperor against war with the USA. He said straight up that Japan would do well for about a year, but after that defeat would be inevitable.
    The reason that I believe that the use of atomic weapons was justified was the conduct of the Japanese, from the generals to the most humble private soldier, during the war.
    To describe them as animals would be to insult animals.
    They were sadistic, vicious, dishonourable (by European concepts of honour) and utterly without redeeming features.
    I doubt that many of today's youth would have the slightest idea of the war crimes that were committed by the Japanese.

    0|0
    0|0
  • 1- the 2 bombs were dropped on military armories
    2- japan attacked 1st
    3- citizens of the areas were already warned to leave
    4- it effectively ended the war in the pacific
    5- if you think that's bad, you should see some of the fucked up shit japan was about to do... they don't fuck around

    1|1
    0|0
    • Bad luck for the civilians, isn't it?

    • Show All
    • @jacquesvol

      There is a HUGE difference between Unit731 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki. That difference being if Japan had surrendered on August 5, or any time prior to that, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have happened.

      If China had surrendered, Unit731 would have gone right on working. Witness the Korean, Vietnamese, and Filipino victims in Unit731 (to say nothing of the mass executions, comfort women, slavery, torture, etc.). These were nations that already had surrendered to Japan (or in the case of Vietnam, allowed themselves to be occupied). Yet they were STILL brutalized.

      The United States and the UK nursed Japan back to health, at GREAT cost to themselves. In occupied and subdued areas of China, and in the surrendered nations of Korea, the Philippines, and Indo China, Japan went right on brutalizing, killing, and torturing the population. Which would you rather be, a Japanese person under US/UK occupation,...

    • Or a Filipino under Japanese occupation?

  • absolute not deserving of it. if the American government has come out publicly and expressed their remorse and profound apology for dropping the nuke.

    0|0
    0|0
    • and the they started it argument (in reference to pearl harbor) is literally what i've heard 100s of children say.

  • The official Truman position was that Japanese people deserved it.

    Of course, it came handy to show the commies in Moscow how destructive the A-bomb is. Too bad for the Japanese.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Which document or speech of Truman's actually uses the word "deserve?"

  • I'm partially Japanese, my grandparents were born in Canada. They had to go to those internment camps, which wasn't fun. The Japanese empire did some aweful things to the countries they occupied and the soldiers they captured so it doesn't really surprise me they they were shown little mercy.

    However Japan didn't do much to the USA. The USA has this tendency to strike back with excessive force. It's like japan flicked the US in the forehead and they responded by stabbing Japan in the face.

    1|0
    0|0
    • I guess the simple solution would have been not to start a war with the USA (esp a sneaky attack) if you know you're going to get your ass beaten in return.

    • Show All
    • Seriously,
      Have fun with that, It was a horrific yet necesary action.
      And consider I know someone who saw their best friend blow apart in some god forsaken jungle,
      Or relative of mine was stationed on an Island when a typhoon hit and he spent the next two weeks eating boot leather.
      We did what we had to

    • "war is scary but I'll read about it anyways and never participate"

  • Deserve is not the right word. No one deserves to be nuked. I think that point was the official start of the Cold War. True it did end the war quickly.
    But look at what it has given rise to, A nation like North Korea having nuclear arms? The US makes its own problems, from what I've seen. Them sabotaging Iran's nuclear project, putting any other country in the doghouse for developing Nuclear tech. Nah, they should've never ever used it in the first place.

    0|0
    0|0
  • The civilians did not deserve that

    0|3
    0|0
  • Deserve? No.

    That being said, I believe it was the fastest way to end the war with the fewest number of lives lost.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Hard call really. I think in some sense they did deserve it, as a way to get them to really cut it out, cuz they were doing all kinds of awful things - raping Chinese women, doing experiments on American soldiers, eating people, etc. It's like they had no limits, so dropping a nuke on them really sent a message.

    1|0
    0|0
  • No. It's actually been proven that they didn't need to drop the bombs at all to end the war. The war was already coming to an end bombs or not. They only dropped them because they had created these great new weapons of mass destruction that would surely make the rest of the world think twice about messing with America. But the war was going to end before they could use them. So they dropped them on Japan under the guise of trying to end a war that was close to being over anyway. Bombing Japan had very little to do with the actual war and everything to do with securing the US's position as a super power.

    Oh and this information is not something I came by through some conspiracy web site. It was something I saw on the History Channel of all places. So even the general media has admitted to it now.

    0|0
    0|0
  • "Deserved" is not that right word. Japan actually appeared to be willing to defend its shores with many more lives before it backed down. And those people went with their emperor. This was to prevent more loss of life. More would have died without the bomb. And nobody could have predicted that atomic power

    0|0
    0|0
  • War is war, deserve ain't got nothing to do with it.

    1|2
    0|0
  • Endless amounts of innocent people including many women and children being killed in a cruel fashion and you are asking if they deserved it

    WOW!

    0|0
    0|0
  • They did. It save millions of lives on both sides. Furthermore, had President Truman not done this, he would need to have been impeached.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Considering the alternative would mean the war extended to 47 and a million dead americans, Yes.
    Those fascists started it when they attacked pearl harbor,
    We just fucking ended it

    0|0
    0|0
  • No. But they could have avoided it had they just surrendered unconditionally. They thought the US was bluffing and paid dearly for it

    0|0
    0|0
  • Not very. I also hope that was the last atomic bomb ever. We do not need or want war. War always wreck the economy. Also we spend billions of dollars on the military while we need to fix our school system, airports, schools, highways, bridges, etc.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Well, 99 Percent of the time it will wreck the economy but WW2 managed to pull us out of the Great depression, won't ever happen again but it did

  • no i think it was a dick move. like bringing a gun to a sword duell.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Show All
    • Well... True in many ways. But there is a reason why most developed countries have some for of atomic weapons regardless of their consequences. Though since the two drops none have been used, they simply serve as a deterint more often than not. Which is why if any country even thinks about using them offensively (seemingly North Korea or Iran) they would be reduced to rubble. Though NK couldn't fire a missile no more than a few hundred miles at best.

    • @CaliSoccerFella yes i agree that it was a useful way to make an example and to show the world, that we are at a point of warfare-technology, where we have to be more considerate with the planet and with collateral damage to countries that weren´t even involved... (talking about fallout).

      i do however think that the japanese were just the poor bastards chosen to be the example. i don´t think anybody "deserves" it.

  • Actually, and invasion would have killed millions and millions of Japanese and hundres of thousands of Americans. The bombs actually saved lives.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Deserved? Nope , but I think this bomb made Japan now this great

    0|0
    0|0
  • The government deserved it, all of those innocent people who died because of the bomb didn't.

    1|0
    0|0
  • They didn't deserve it, but ironically, it might've been the most humane thing to do. They were deadset on fighting until the last man standing. Yea, lots of lives were lost, but more might've been if we had not dropped the bomb.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Only the leadership, the junta and their enablers. Not the civilians.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I don't think it was right to willingly raze civilians in Dresden, either. Only the bad guys are supposed to do that. I know, I know, it's easy to say when you already won, not when you're still fighting a war which you see as a fight to the death, but I still don't have to think it's right.

  • No. It was ready to surrender before the bomb was dropped.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Then why didn't Japan surrender when they were warned? The USA gave them time to surrender but they didn't. Why is that?

    • @manyak They didn't give them enough. The evidence shows that they were going to surrender. It must not have gotten to them in time. 1940s are not the 21st century. We almost had a nuclear fallout in the 60s because of poor communication in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

  • Maybe not the second one. But I guess they had to get pictures for the tax payers somehow.

    0|0
    0|0
  • you are asking this question like 60 years late , nukes are bad

    0|0
    0|0
  • Which one?

    0|0
    0|0
  • More from Guys
    2
Loading...