It was necessary, I dont think Japan would have given up otherwise, and the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned to evacuate before the bombs were dropped, but Japanese officials claimed it was only propaganda, after the first bomb was dropped Japan was given the chance to surrender, but they didn't believe that the US had more than one bomb.
Looking at it today it's clearly bad and unjustified. I think it was an overdone attempt to end the war and well it was successful. It's bad but I don't see it happening any other way
no not really, like I duno I know the situation was bad but I dont think either of them would be justified to drop a bomb, but it already happened so I guess there's nothing we can really do now
The Japanese government was offered the opportunity to surrender on multiple occasions before the bomb was dropped, and they refused. Thats how war works. It is cruel and no-one cares whether its morally right or not. whatever gets the job done.
Weren't we going to kill about that many of them in any event? They allied themselves with Nazis and fascist Italy, they took a stand on the wrong side of history, and the good guys had the strength to put the lid on Pandora's box.
It is impossible to be without war, because humans are greedy, ambitious, destructive, divided, etc. Thus as long as humans exist in this world, war is unavoidable and inevitable. The only times war couldn't possible happen or exist are the times way before humans came into existence. And the other, and it may not be what you want to hear, is probably when our species have died out, but that would be in the distant future. Could something else, some other new kind of life with the same ore greater scale or level of intelligence and consciousness as we humans currently have come into existence afterwards? Who knows? If so, then they may repeat the process, if they aren't able to tolerate each other, become greedy and become too ambitious, and is another very divided species, in which we always had been and still currently is.
I don't see nukes as ever justified in the same way I don't agree with chemical warfare. You can put it down to ignorance of the after effects at the time.
Yes it was justified in saving American lives because the only other option was to invade mainland Japan and that would have gone worse than D-day if you cut D-days American casualties in half.
@madhatters4 You should never attack someone who's stronger than you and if you do do not complain about the consequence of it. It was totally justified to me. What Japanese did was very cowardly.
so you've basically given credence to the terrorist who suggest that because america caste the first stone they can in turn respond by killing anyone america or associated with america
violence in the middle east was instigated by the USA and western forces meddling in the middle east. terrorist justify this as reason to attack innocent americans, europeans, and western sympathizers. so basically it's no wonder america attacked japan after pearl harbor is like saying no wonder 9/11 happened after decades of war and death in the middle east through American outright aggression and proxy wars
@madhatters4 Then go explain to me why the majority of terrorist attack are made in the middle east / Muslim countries and not in the countries who attacked them?
You can't compare the both, that's truly not the same things, the only things you can compare the terrorist attack nowadays are with the Christian Crusade.
not really relevant why most attacks are in the middle east against their own. the fact is if you excuse the atomic bomb based on the notion of they hit us first then you would have to excuse terrorism against the west because we hit them first
it is an apt comparison since until the the western world created Israel and subsequently interjected itself into geo politics in the mideast (over the next 70 years) after world war 2 there was not an ongoing assault of Muslim and Islamic extremist against western nations.
Japan was warned many times too stop their assault over the pacific but they continued, resulting in The Rape of Nanjing as well as many other atrocities in their persuit over more land and "a pacific empire". It was justified in conclusion
And how much of the land and people they'd seized through outright aggression would they have been allowed to keep under their brutal "forced labor" regime?
they'd already lost the land to the russians who has attacked the eastern front. literally russia was weeks if not days to being ready to launch an attack on the main island. under the terms of the surrender the japanese twice offered they conceded all seized lands. the only thing they requested was an end to war and to keep the imperial emperor in place.
I answered yes, and that mostly had to do with how bad the war was and the fact nobody knew how bad using those weapons would be. However, I would never want to see nuclear weapons used ever again.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
Of course it was justified... this question is a lot like asking do you have any clue about history.
why was it justified? japan offered to surrender on two occasions prior to the a-bomb being dropped under terms that the US agreed to after the a-bomb was dropped
Really, what were the conditions? Japan was given a warning it was coming and didn't surrenderer. Then they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. doesn't that put a little hole in your story?
How many people would have died if we were forced to invade?
they offered surrender twice. the only condition was that they be able to keep their imperial emperor in power. the americans twice ignored it saying unconditional surrender was the only terms they'd accept (no imperial emperor)... ultimately when the japanese surrendered their condition of keeping the imperial emperor was met.
the bomb was merely a show of military might to warn the USSR that in the upcoming cold war the USA had the advantage
the USA wasn't going to be forced to invade, as again, the japanese twice offered surrender
Interesting, your interpretation seems very generous. Below is what i found with a quick search. So your saying war crimes, Korea, Taiwan.. are no big deal i guess...
"The Japanese government was imagining giving back the Pacific islands, and essentially keeping everything else. They were not imagining returning Taiwan, Korea, Manchukuo (Manchuria) the occupation of Japan, or punishment of war criminals. Japan would surrender if certain conditions were met: (1) preservation of the emperor; (2) that Japan was not to be occupied; (3) that the Japanese armed forces be disbanded voluntarily; (4) that war criminals would be prosecuted by Japanese courts in Japan."
where did i say I was ok with war crimes? please show me? if you want to have an earnest conversation do not put inflammatory words in the mouths of others ok... here is the potsdam delaration of July 26th. this is documented as the potsdam meeting was attened by the allies (truman, churchill, and stalin) and stalin and the soviets were attempting to mediate surrender... here are the terms
the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest" the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies" that the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests. that "[t]he Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives." that "[w]e do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners."
you the said japan offered to surrender before... the surrender japan was talking about did not include prosecution of war crimes. Since you were fine with that, i assume you were ok with that.
Its very convient to blame the us and make excuses when you tell half the story. japans surrender that was offered before the bomb was NOT the same as after!
can you stop? seriously? prosecution of war crimes is not included in a surrender. it just happens once a war is concluded. look at the german's surrender. it makes no mention of war crimes and yet they were prosecuted. japan's surrender after the bomb made no mention of war crimes and yet they were prosecuted. the potsdam declaration was the accepted terms of surrender as negotiated by japan and the allies... and it makes no mention of war crimes
you can try and push whatever narrative about me on to me if you wish. it's disingenuous and just a sign that in lieu of real facts, and ignoring the explicit facts, you opt for personal provocation. it's incredible
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
83Opinion
It was necessary, I dont think Japan would have given up otherwise, and the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned to evacuate before the bombs were dropped, but Japanese officials claimed it was only propaganda, after the first bomb was dropped Japan was given the chance to surrender, but they didn't believe that the US had more than one bomb.
That's a good one, " they didn't believe that the US had more than one bomb", do you believe that?
Yeah, why do you think they didn't surrender after the first nuke?
We can only speculate but we can not be sure about lot of things there
But it did end the war didn't it? ... if Japan had those bombs I'm sure they would of used it...
That was the start of mass destruction weapons... except now its somewhat controlled
Looking at it today it's clearly bad and unjustified. I think it was an overdone attempt to end the war and well it was successful. It's bad but I don't see it happening any other way
no not really, like I duno I know the situation was bad but I dont think either of them would be justified to drop a bomb, but it already happened so I guess there's nothing we can really do now
It gave us anime. And because of that, depending on who you asked, that is either the best thing that ever happened, or the worst
The Japanese government was offered the opportunity to surrender on multiple occasions before the bomb was dropped, and they refused. Thats how war works. It is cruel and no-one cares whether its morally right or not. whatever gets the job done.
Yes, a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland would have resulted in millions of deaths for both sides.
Weren't we going to kill about that many of them in any event? They allied themselves with Nazis and fascist Italy, they took a stand on the wrong side of history, and the good guys had the strength to put the lid on Pandora's box.
I dream of a world without war or even guns, but we are far from ready
It is impossible to be without war, because humans are greedy, ambitious, destructive, divided, etc. Thus as long as humans exist in this world, war is unavoidable and inevitable. The only times war couldn't possible happen or exist are the times way before humans came into existence. And the other, and it may not be what you want to hear, is probably when our species have died out, but that would be in the distant future. Could something else, some other new kind of life with the same ore greater scale or level of intelligence and consciousness as we humans currently have come into existence afterwards? Who knows? If so, then they may repeat the process, if they aren't able to tolerate each other, become greedy and become too ambitious, and is another very divided species, in which we always had been and still currently is.
I have doubts about how far off our demise may be
I don't see nukes as ever justified in the same way I don't agree with chemical warfare. You can put it down to ignorance of the after effects at the time.
Imagine how many soldiers would've died and how much more time it would've taken in the invasion that would've happened instead of nukes
The citizens who didn't support Axis didn't deserve to die but the war had to end
The targeting of civilians is never justifiable. It is nothing more than terrorism.
Yes it was justified in saving American lives because the only other option was to invade mainland Japan and that would have gone worse than D-day if you cut D-days American casualties in half.
From what I heard, the Japanese were already planning on surrendering, so it really was just unnecessary. I could be completely wrong.
I think it was, after what Japanese did to Pearl Harbor it's no wonder American attacked them.
death toll of pearl harbor - 2,335
death toll of a-bombs - 225,000+
@madhatters4 You should never attack someone who's stronger than you and if you do do not complain about the consequence of it.
It was totally justified to me. What Japanese did was very cowardly.
so you've basically given credence to the terrorist who suggest that because america caste the first stone they can in turn respond by killing anyone america or associated with america
@madhatters4 What do you mean? Can you explain better?
violence in the middle east was instigated by the USA and western forces meddling in the middle east. terrorist justify this as reason to attack innocent americans, europeans, and western sympathizers. so basically it's no wonder america attacked japan after pearl harbor is like saying no wonder 9/11 happened after decades of war and death in the middle east through American outright aggression and proxy wars
@madhatters4 Then go explain to me why the majority of terrorist attack are made in the middle east / Muslim countries and not in the countries who attacked them?
You can't compare the both, that's truly not the same things, the only things you can compare the terrorist attack nowadays are with the Christian Crusade.
not really relevant why most attacks are in the middle east against their own. the fact is if you excuse the atomic bomb based on the notion of they hit us first then you would have to excuse terrorism against the west because we hit them first
it is an apt comparison since until the the western world created Israel and subsequently interjected itself into geo politics in the mideast (over the next 70 years) after world war 2 there was not an ongoing assault of Muslim and Islamic extremist against western nations.
@madhatters4 You're messing everything.
i don't know that i'm messing anything
@madhatters4 That's worrying then.
Japan was warned many times too stop their assault over the pacific but they continued, resulting in The Rape of Nanjing as well as many other atrocities in their persuit over more land and "a pacific empire". It was justified in conclusion
Pretty much it. Japan was a merciless bully. They had no business starting a war with the USA in the first place.
Yawn... It saved many more Japanese (and Allied!) lives than it cost by forcing capitulation rather than letting them fight to the bitter end.
except japan twice offered surrender prior to the a-bombs. literally weeks before the a-bomb was dropped japan offered to surrender
And how much of the land and people they'd seized through outright aggression would they have been allowed to keep under their brutal "forced labor" regime?
they'd already lost the land to the russians who has attacked the eastern front. literally russia was weeks if not days to being ready to launch an attack on the main island. under the terms of the surrender the japanese twice offered they conceded all seized lands. the only thing they requested was an end to war and to keep the imperial emperor in place.
Yawn... I know you're wrong, so... Sources?
I think it's a little more complicated than that. While it can certainly be justified, there's also no doubt that it was overkill.
I answered yes, and that mostly had to do with how bad the war was and the fact nobody knew how bad using those weapons would be. However, I would never want to see nuclear weapons used ever again.
Of course it was justified... this question is a lot like asking do you have any clue about history.
why was it justified? japan offered to surrender on two occasions prior to the a-bomb being dropped under terms that the US agreed to after the a-bomb was dropped
Really, what were the conditions? Japan was given a warning it was coming and didn't surrenderer. Then they didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. doesn't that put a little hole in your story?
How many people would have died if we were forced to invade?
they offered surrender twice. the only condition was that they be able to keep their imperial emperor in power. the americans twice ignored it saying unconditional surrender was the only terms they'd accept (no imperial emperor)... ultimately when the japanese surrendered their condition of keeping the imperial emperor was met.
the bomb was merely a show of military might to warn the USSR that in the upcoming cold war the USA had the advantage
the USA wasn't going to be forced to invade, as again, the japanese twice offered surrender
Interesting, your interpretation seems very generous. Below is what i found with a quick search. So your saying war crimes, Korea, Taiwan.. are no big deal i guess...
"The Japanese government was imagining giving back the Pacific islands, and essentially keeping everything else. They were not imagining returning Taiwan, Korea, Manchukuo (Manchuria) the occupation of Japan, or punishment of war criminals. Japan would surrender if certain conditions were met: (1) preservation of the emperor; (2) that Japan was not to be occupied; (3) that the Japanese armed forces be disbanded voluntarily; (4) that war criminals would be prosecuted by Japanese courts in Japan."
where did i say I was ok with war crimes? please show me? if you want to have an earnest conversation do not put inflammatory words in the mouths of others ok...
here is the potsdam delaration of July 26th. this is documented as the potsdam meeting was attened by the allies (truman, churchill, and stalin) and stalin and the soviets were attempting to mediate surrender... here are the terms
the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
that the "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests.
that "[t]he Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives."
that "[w]e do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners."
you the said japan offered to surrender before... the surrender japan was talking about did not include prosecution of war crimes. Since you were fine with that, i assume you were ok with that.
Its very convient to blame the us and make excuses when you tell half the story. japans surrender that was offered before the bomb was NOT the same as after!
can you stop? seriously?
prosecution of war crimes is not included in a surrender. it just happens once a war is concluded. look at the german's surrender. it makes no mention of war crimes and yet they were prosecuted. japan's surrender after the bomb made no mention of war crimes and yet they were prosecuted. the potsdam declaration was the accepted terms of surrender as negotiated by japan and the allies... and it makes no mention of war crimes
you can try and push whatever narrative about me on to me if you wish. it's disingenuous and just a sign that in lieu of real facts, and ignoring the explicit facts, you opt for personal provocation. it's incredible
The only thing not justified that the innocent people to lost their lifes. I won't accept that