The American use of the atomic bomb was a justifiable way to end the Pacific war. Based on the casualties suffered by both sides on the smaller islands leading up to the home island, the Americans were well aware that the cost of the final invasions would be extremely high for both sides, possibly more so for the Japanese considering their antiquated notions of honour and surrender. On Saipan, nearly all 30,000 Soldiers died, and 2 out of every 3 civilians also died. While approaching the island, American soldiers witnessed women holding their children launching themselves from cliffs instead of being taken as prisoners. This was still in the Marianas Islands, over 2,000 km from Okinawa and over 3000 from Tokyo. The tenacity of the Japanese can be easily seen in Lieutenant Onoda, who continued to fight for 29 years after the war had ended in the Philippines, holding firm to the mantra that Japanese soldiers “did not surrender, even in the face of insuperable odds.” The indoctrination of armed forces with the idea of “bushido” assured that all would fight with such tenacity.
The Japanese were steeling themselves against an invasion of the mainland, and were not prepared to surrender. When attempting to negotiate, they were demanding much more than the allies could permit, such as no occupation of Japan. By 1945, they had 8000 aircraft, hundreds of explosive packed boats, and two million well equipped soldiers. They intended to strike the Allies so strongly and cause such high casualties as to scare them off. Estimates of Japanese casualties if an invasion should occur were as high as 2 million, and Winston Churchill is quoted as stating the invasion would have cost the lives of 1 million Americans and a quarter million British.
Are these rough estimations enough to warrant the dropping of such terrible, terrible weapons? Yes. Father John Siemes, an eye witness stated “it seems logical to me that he who supports total war… cannot complain of war against civilians.” The Allies’ first and foremost concern is with the lives of their own soldiers. Any leader that puts the lives of enemy civilians ahead of his own peoples should not be leading. Also, the idea that a continued bombing campaign would have ended the war seems preposterous. After the bombings of Tokyo, the Japanese people did not lose heart, they grew more resolved in their actions. The Allies gave them a number of chances to exit the war before hand, even going so far as to specify the innocence of the Emperor, but as stated before, they would not accept and underestimated the Americans. It is these reasons that lead me to believe the American use of the atom bomb was an entirely justifiable way to end the War in the pacific.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war in the Pacific was justifiable. The Japanese people were prepared to fight to the death for Emperor Hirohito; it is unlikely that they would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bomb. The Japanese were tenacious and resilient in their fight against the Americans. It is hard to see the Japanese surrender after seeing examples of their courageous and fanatical resistance on both Saipan and Okinawa.
Many Japanese soldiers were dedicated to fighting and dying for their Emperor. The samurai practice of "bushido" inspired the Japanese soldiers to fight until their last breath and to never surrender to the enemy. While some did surrender, many followed this code religiously and fought to the death or committed suicide if they had been defeated. The Japanese tenacity is perfectly demonstrated by Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda who continued fighting in the Philippines long after the war had ended. It was only until 1974 that he surrendered, this was nearly 29 years after the war had ended. The Japanese army's tenacity makes it seem unlikely that they would have surrendered to the Americans without a powerful force such as the atomic bomb.
The atom bomb let the Pacific War end in the Allies favour as well. The Japanese were looking for loopholes to make peace with the Allies while preserving the current system in place. The Japanese were trying to make deals with the USSR to not only guarantee the Emperor`s safety, but to also guarantee no Allies occupation of Japan. This is a completely unrealistic and unfair demand considering the amount of damage the Japanese did to both the property and people of the Allied nations and their overseas territories. The Japanese were not looking to surrender to the Allies, rather to preserve their government and escape the shame of defeat.
The Air Force`s strategic bombing campaign and the Navy`s blockade were not pushing Japan towards surrender as some might like to believe. The US Army Air Force was not as close to crippling Japan as it might like to think and their pleading to let the bombing of Tokyo continue was more part of their own ambitions. It was long known that the USAAF wanted to become a military body independent of the army and they feared the atomic bomb making the need for a large air force obsolete. The navy was exaggerating the effect of its blockade as well. While the Japanese population was starving, they by no means were prepared to surrender.
Emperor Hirohito only gave up once he truly realized the extent of the American`s power through the atomic bomb. This made the people of Japan give up. There is no doubt that the atomic bomb was the ultimate death blow needed to defeat the Japanese. Even Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall advocated the use of the atomic bomb to support an invasion of Japan. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, they were prepared to sacrifice everything in defence of their homeland and invasions of Manchuria and the Home Islands would not force them to submit. The Japanese people were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice and they like Hirohito became open to surrender only until they realized the futility of resisting the power of the atomic bomb. If anything the atomic bomb saved more Japanese lives than it took. As Professor Duncan Anderson said "The losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, but not as terrible as the number of Japanese who would have died as the result of an invasion." The atomic bomb was neither the wrong way nor the right way of forcing the Japanese to surrender. It was simply the only way.
I believe that the American dropping of the Atomic Bomb in Japan was not justified. Many justify the dropping of the Atomic Bomb by saying that it would have saved thousands of American and Allied lives because they wouldn't have to invade the homeland of Japan. What makes the value of American lives any greater than those of the Japanese civilians. The Japanese civilians weren't even apart of the war, their county was. It was calculated by General Douglas MacArthur that the total of American lives that would be lost in the event of an invasion would be 47,000. Sure that's a lot, but that's nothing compared to the total of 160,000 Japanese that were instantly killed during the dropping of the two atomic bombs. 160,000 were killed in the droppings, however, those who survived the initial droppings suffered a long, slow, excruciatingly painful death were not included in that figure.
When the Americans first landed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they came to a gruesome and disturbing realization of what the atomic bomb was really capable of. The landscape was grey and flatted, and there were thousands of people black from being burned. The people were coughing up and urinating blood, vomiting, and their hair was falling out in pieces. They were sitting in the streets -homeless- waiting to die. So tell me, how inflicting that on another human being is justifiable.
Another reason why the dropping of the atomic bomb wasn't justified was because Japan was already considering surrender. They knew that if the Soviets decided to join in on the invasion, they wouldn't be able succeed. The American and Soviet forces would be too much for the Japanese forces to handle. Also, the Home Islands were already beginning to starve, so they would be forced to surrender in the near future. Many will argue that Japan was not ready to surrender due to the fact that they were training school girls and other civilians. However, the civilians didn't have much of a choice. The Japanese soldiers were responsible for a lot of the civilian deaths in Okinawa, so the Home Island civilians could have been scared to oppose. There was also an investigation done, and the conclusion was that Japan would have surrendered just by the American air force.
The atomic bomb is a massive weapon that no country should possess. Chief of Staff to President Truman stated, "... we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.... wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
All of this being said, the atomic bomb cannot be justified.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan by the U.S to end the war in the Pacific was certainly not justified. It has been stated in our worksheets that it saved many American lives, although it seems to constantly ignore or fail to mention Japanese lives, it damage many more than the number of bodies they could count for dead. It affected more than countable morally the lives on many people over the world. A popular argument to why it is justified is that Japan was not considered to surrender and this was the last option. Yet, in 1946 a report by the Federal Council of Churches stated, “..it seems clear that even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This shows that Japanese were going to surrender without such an awful unnecessary atomic bomb. Another source from Fleet Admiral Chester Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, “..The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons..” thus supporting the firs statement and showing Japanese were already being brought down to their knees. General Marshall of the U.S would support in no warning them, to produce the shock of surprise. But as well, it would shock many others even Americans, he would support the Atomic Bomb to demoralize the Japanese, although it even demoralized Americans. In Unit XXIV The Atom Bomb, It says how the primary reason for dropping the bomb was to secure the speedy and unconditional surrender of Japan. A secondary effect was to stiffen Truman’s attitude towards the Soviet Union. The cost of dropping an atomic bomb is certainly not worth a relationship with the Soviet Union. The atomic bomb dropped on the city of Hiroshima, vanished 100 000 people in a split second. While the atomic bombing in Nagasaki killed another 40 000. While and un countable number of people got cancer from the radiation and died. Out of the people who survived the bombing, about 100 000 got radiation poisoning and died a painful lingering death. In our worksheet, The End of the War against Japan, it says how People saw hideously burnt people coughing up and urinating blood with their hair falling out in clumps waiting to die. This is absolutely terrible, and the Americans would say it was to prevent an invasion which could cost around 2 million more lives. Although there is no way of knowing the amount of people that would have died from an invasion. It could have been far less. It is also argued by the U.S Navy own assessment, stating that their submarine campaign also brought Japan to its knees, that the home islands were on the verge of starvation and that this alone would have produced surrender, thereby obviating the need for an atomic bomb or invasion. In the same worksheet it is also shows and claimed that Japanese diplomats had been trying to open surrender negotiations with the U.S. It is lastly stated, “Truman, decided to demonstrate America’s new power to the Soviets by bombing Japanese cities, even though he knew the Japanese were trying to surrender. To conclude and support my argument, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” – M.K. Gandhi.
The use of the atomic bomb in the Pacific Theater was certainly justified, as it had brought Japan to surrender. By the beginning of August 1945, the U.S. was already at total war with the Japanese and total war meant that "all the nation's resources must be brought to bear on the goal of achieving victory." This indicated that the U.S. bore the responsibility of a) saving their own country men and b) bringing down the Japanese military, hence the use of any artillery or weaponry in order to defeat the enemy. The dropping of the atomic bomb was definitely a harsh blow onto the innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it was a quick and efficient way to end the war. The atomic bomb saved the lives of the Americans, the British, the Malayans, and the Singaporeans. No matter what measures had to be taken, American morale required men enlisted in the army to put their country first. The dropping of the atomic bomb did what it was supposed to do - demoralize the Japanese and bring them to surrender, and although it is negotiable to say that the Japanese would have surrender with prolonged bombing campaigns, the atomic bomb made sure that Japan surrendered and would stop fighting.
The use of the Atomic bomb to end the war with Japan was justified. The Japanese death toll from Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have been around the same number if America had invaded Japan. However, there are a few reasons for why the atomic bomb was more useful than a direct battle on Japanese land. The US would have had to have kept its alliance with Russia to threaten Japan enough to surrender had it not used the Atomic bomb, which was unpopular and considered unecessary with a weapon such as the atomic bomb in American hands. With American invasion of Japan, American lives would have been lost and President Truman needed to think of American lives first before the Japanese. The Japanese were in favour of suicide before capture, so the atomic bomb killed those who would have died anyways. As well, between the pain of being shot or a quick vaporization by the atomic bomb, as horrible as it may sound, it might have been more humane to use the atomic bomb. In total war, civillian lives seems to be the only sure way to end the war, and using the atomic bomb was the easiest and safest (for the Americans) way to do so.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan by the United States was justifiable. Japan had no intentions of surrendering, and the Americans needed a quick way to end the war. The use of the atomic bomb avoided an invasion of Japan and saved both American and Japanese lives.
The Japanese soldiers were ruthless and refused to break down, surrender, or be captured. Ideas like bushido (the way of the warrior) and Yamato-damashii (Japanese spirit) were deeply ingrained in both the soldiers and civilians of Japan. Japanese will and morale had also not been broken by the defeats, bombs, or blockade.
Some critics of the atomic bomb argue that Japan was close to surrendering, but this is simply not true. Intercepted navy and army messages clearly outlined the Japanese plan to fight a final battle against an American invasion. These messages were further supported by the large numbers of aircraft, suicide boats, and other equipment that had been stockpiled. Japan also had over two million soldiers and a large civilian militia prepared to fight to the death.
Although it is true that the Japanese had made contact with the Soviet Union to negotiate surrender, these negotiations were actually a ploy to delay Soviet entry into the war rather than a genuine attempt at ending the war.
The death toll of the atomic bombs was an unfortunate cost to end the war, but there is little outrage over the Tokyo firestorm that ended a similar number of lives. Many who oppose the use of the atomic bomb believe that usage of incendiary bombs should have been continued even though victims were subject to painful death through fire.
Possibly the most important fact regarding the usage of the atomic bomb is that it actually saved both American and Japanese lives. Going by the death toll in Okinawa (20 Japanese dead for every dead American), over 100,000 Americans would have died in an invasion of Japan and at least two million Japanese soldiers and civilians would have died.
It is often ignored that the United States had no intentions of killing Japanese civilians. Leaflets were dropped on major cities clearly outlining the plan to destroy a number of cities and encouraging citizens to evacuate. After the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, more detailed leaflets were dropped on other cities that described the power of the atomic bombs and urged citizens to petition an end to the war before another bomb was used.
The fact is, the use of the atomic bomb by the United States brought World War II to an end, saving at least 100,000 American lives and around 1.8 million Japanese lives. Japan was not going to surrender, and it would have been inhumane to refrain from using the bomb and invade instead.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified. Japanese people were not going to surrender, as most men fought until they were killed or committed suicide. As American troops were advancing on Saipan, they started to see mothers clutching their babies hurling themselves over the cliffs other than being taken prisoner! This was an example of Japanese Total sacrifice. The other enduring image is that of the kamikaze pilots, their planes packed with high explosives, plowing into allied warships. Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final deadly battle in their homeland against an allied invasion. The Japanese code of Bushido, put in place Japanese resistance to the death rather than retreat. The code equipped each Japanese soldier with a strict code: Never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Many Japanese leaders had preferred to take their lives in the painful samurai ritual of 'seppuku' where they stick their sword through themselves. These are all reasons why I believe the bombing was justified, Japanese soldiers were trained to die and if possible taking American lives with them once they knew not of a chance to win.
The atomic bomb on 6 August 1945 over Hiroshima, in only a split second had killed 100,000 people, along with the second bomb on Nagasaki, 3 days later killing another 40,000. These numbers don't even compare to the fact that if the Allies had started a final invasion on Japan, which would have been necessary to winning the war against Japan, during the invasion many hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen would have been killed and wounded, even with the American superiority in number of ships and aircraft.
The initial Japanese attack on American naval base, Pearl Harbor united Americans against Japan and gave them a good and strong reason to fight back and possibly bomb them. Japanese bombers ruined a good chunk of Pearl Harbor, leaving the Americans hurt, but merely pissed off at them. These are just some of my reasons why I think the atomic bomb strategy on Japan was justified.
The nuclear bombing that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is justifiable. The Japanese armed forces had a code of honour to themselves and their Emperor, to never surrender and to fight on until last man. They were ready for an invasion of the home island, which perhaps would have produced one of the bloodiest battles of the entire war. With the U.S having the advantage of the nuclear bomb, it would only make sense to spare their own men, and to once and for all end this gruelling war, the only way possible, to drop the nuclear bomb. In doing this the U.S. put their superiority to the whole world. It was the best possible way to end the war for the U.S.
It was clear from the start; the Japanese will refuse to surrender. Their honour went to their Emperor and their ancestry, to surrender was seen as dishonour. Nearly every single Japanese soldier was ready to take his life rather than be captured; this was also shown by regular civilians on Saipan, where mothers would jump off cliffs with their babies in order to avoid being captured and held prisoner. This showed the honour even civilians would prove to their Emperor. With the Japanese being stubborn to surrender, and ready to fight until last man it would have made a very bloody end for both sides of the war. It is also known that the Japanese had no clue how much atomic bombs the Americans have. There is a chance that they would have fought if their intelligence would have known that there were only two bombs, which again shows the mentality of the Japanese.
This brings me to the battle that never happened. The battle that would have occurred in Japan is seen by historians to be one of the bloodiest of all time. Millions of U.S. soldiers as well as British and perhaps Soviet soldiers would have battled and died, but much more of the Japanese would have died as well. The Japanese would not be able to fend off the attack that was coming onto them, they would have died defending the island, but in the end it would be a lost cause. Truman saw this as well, and knew that sparing his own men; as well millions of Japanese would only be possible by the surrender. It is important to know that there was numerous surrender options sent to the Japanese before the dropping of the bomb. However surrender was not to be signed and war was to continue. There was no other option to Truman other then drop the nuclear bomb. In doing this it was seen as a very evil action, but it was the only way for both sides to walk away from this long war, and Truman couldn't have passed on this.
The build of the Manhattan Project was about $26 billion in today U.S. dollars. This was a huge project in full secrecy, which was built to one day use and perhaps ends a war. With having the bomb in hand, Truman would make the U.S. into a world super power instantly. To have spent all the money and years on building the bomb, there was no way the U.S. was not going to drop it. It wouldn't make sense to lose all those men on a raid at Japan, when war can be ended with your men not being shot, after all this was a total war, where your men are your number one priority.
Dropping the atomic bomb brought a huge fear on the world. Knowing that at any time a bomb with such power can be dropped was very disturbing. The American’s had no other way to end the war on the Japanese who were ready to die defending the home island. Whether it was a humane thing to do or not, in a total war victory is needed and to provide the victory the U.S used an atom bomb. With all factors included the dropping of the bomb was justifiable.
The dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was justifiable. It was the only way to end the war without invading, and therefore prevent the loss of tens of thousands of lives, as far as the US could see.
Extrapolation from the numbers of both American and Japanese casualties in previous battles of the Pacific War reveal an approximation of the extent of the damage that would be caused by an invasion of Japan. In Okinawa, which was almost 1000 miles away from the home islands, 12500 Americans died. Estimates made by General MacArthur as to how many Americans would die in the proposed invasion were too high for the US government, which obviously wanted to look out for the interests of its troops, and even these estimates were on the low side, as MacArthur was in favor of an invasion which he would be leading. The time, resources, and lives that would have to be spent without the bomb were unjustifiable, at least in the American point of view. They saw how the bushido warrior code was ingrained into many of the Japanese soldiers they had been up against, and believed that there would be no surrender without a weapon that would shock the Emperor into realizing that he couldn’t win. Peace negotiations were also out of the question, as the Japanese were asking that the Allies would not occupy their home islands. The Americans couldn’t take this risk, especially with what had happened to start off WWII in Germany, and with what they knew about Japanese unwillingness to surrender. War had to be ended, and the US saw the atomic bomb as an opportunity to do so quickly and with minimal casualties.
The choice to drop the bombs instead of invade was also somewhat considerate of Japanese lives. 250000 Japanese soldiers and civilians died in Okinawa, and this number could only increase with a larger population, elevated desperation, and increased influence of the Emperor and military on the people. From what the US knew about the atomic bomb, it would annihilate the city and surrounding area, simply blowing it off the map. Test runs were all they had to go by, really, and these were done in deserted areas where the effects of radiation were not observed, so they didn’t know how this would affect people who weren’t vaporized.
Other options existed as to how to end the war without an invasion, but none of them were as reliable as the atomic bomb. Despite reports from the armed forces, there was no guarantee that a naval blockade or continuation of the air force’s bombing campaign would have worked. In fact, the statement from the navy may have contained “over-exaggerations of the efficacy of the submarine blockade”, as they were looking to uphold a good reputation and receive commendation for their efforts. The same applies for the air force: their survey which stated that the Japanese would have surrendered from the fire bombing campaign was “designed to secure a large independent air force”, the development of which would have been threatened if they didn’t gain some credit and all the attention was on the atomic bombs. So, the reports weren’t totally trustworthy, and even without these possibly deviations, it’s really impossible to see if the war would have ended without dropping the atom bombs. What we do know was that the US government chose the route that they saw as a sure way of forcing Japan to surrender.
Even if a different alternative was chosen, the other methods really weren’t all that bloodless. The fire-bombing by the air force, for example, was causing huge numbers of casualties, by burning down cities and homes. Data on the total number killed by these raids varies, but centers around 300 000, with many more wounded. This exceeds the lives lost due to the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and was more widespread. The naval blockade wasn’t quite as destructive, but the long term restriction of supplies to Japan was and would undoubtedly cause widespread poverty and starvation, especially considering Japan’s no-surrender philosophy; it would have gone on for a long time, and many people would probably have been forced to cede their few belongings to the Emperor for the survival of more important people. The loss of civilian lives was unavoidable in ending the war, and as far as the Americans could see, the atomic bomb was the best way to do that.
In addition, Japan was not planning on surrendering. Over 8000 aircraft (including many kamikazes), hundreds of suicide boats packed with explosives, over 2 million soldiers, and an enormous civilian militia were being mobilized to throw up against US invaders. The plan was to kill so many Americans that they’d crack and give Japan better terms than an unconditional surrender. This on top of the well-represented bushido code of the Japanese military and their unwillingness to give up in previous battles of the Pacific War strongly suggest that a naval blockade or continued fire bombing campaign, or even an invasion of Manchuria by the Russians wouldn’t break their will to fight. The real task of the atomic bomb was to shock and overwhelm the Emperor and the military leaders in Japan with the power the US possessed, so that they’d acknowledge the fact that they couldn’t win. The Americans believed that nothing else could do it, and later exposure of the futility of Japanese attempts at peace negotiations and of Japan’s real intentions confirm that.
Some argue that the US ushered in the nuclear age and started the Cold War by dropping the atomic bombs. The Manhattan Project, however, was triggered by material that other countries were already working on. Naturally, the US wanted to make sure they were able to use it first, so followed suit and came out ahead (which was also natural considering their economic position). If the Americans hadn’t done it, someone would have dropped the bomb (quite literally). In terms of Russian- American relations, Truman and Stalin were having disagreements from the beginning. Both wanted to expand their spheres of influence, and this competition combined with other events would have strained the relations between the two countries anyway. The Cold War would have been different, for sure, but so would everything else if World War II had ended differently, and the nuclear technology would still have been available during the period of time in which the Cold War took place.
To conclude, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan by the US in order to end WWII was justifiable. It was the best way to end the war, with the knowledge that the Americans had at the time, considering the options of a naval blockade, continued air raids, or an invasion, all of which would have exacted huge costs and an unacceptable amount of deaths and injuries. Without the display of nuclear power presented to Japan, it’s possible that unconditional surrender may not have happened, and that was not a risk that the US could take.
The use of the Atomic bomb on Japan by the United Sates justifiable because it was the only we the Americans could Japan to surrender and finally end the war, it was also a logical way for the Americans to not only defeat the Japanese but avoid in an invasion that would cost a lot of their soldiers’ lives.
The Japanese were going by the code “Bushido” , they were taught from the beginning to see war as an act that could purify them (the soldiers), the nation, and even the whole world. They were to live by the quote “Do not live shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you”. When some Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they died or committed suicide. The Americans knowing they were to go by such a strong code, they knew they would have to do something as drastic and large in scale as an atomic bomb to finally bring the war to an end.
If the Americans chose to invade, a lot more American lives would be taken. For those who are against the Atomic bombs because of the total loss of “innocent civilians” the Americans had to think of their own soldiers’ lives before those who live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese were preparing for a invasion they were training everyone from actual military to school girls, they were not going down without a fight, without the atomic bomb this war could have lasted much longer and much larger in casualties, that is why the use of the atomic bomb on Japan by the United states is justifiable.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan by the United States is justifiable. The atomic bomb gave the Americans an invaluable upper hand. No other country had possession of the atomic bomb at this point and therefore, no one had anything to counter it either. Based on this, it was the surest way to end the war in the Pacific.
After the immense losses on the many islands (in particular, Okinawa), an invasion of mainland Japan seemed ridiculous. Stimson, who was then the Secretary of War of the U.S., estimated that there would be up to a million American casualties, not to mention a quarter of a million British lives (a number provided by Winston Churchill), had they gone with invading Japanese soil. Using the previous statistics from Okinawa, one dead American generally meant twenty dead Japanese. Therefore, there could have been two million Japanese deaths at least, had an invasion taken place.
There was no guarantee that the Japanese would surrender unconditionally – but the Americans wanted nothing less. The perpetuated idea of the Japanese mindset of honour and never surrendering, rather choosing death, is not baseless. Kamikazes and banzai charges were by no means uncommon and were devastating on both sides. In fact, the Japanese were a leading contributing factor to their many of their own deaths as well as the destruction of their aircrafts. Furthermore, despite the fact that the government might have considered surrendering, the people in the military were not at all considering this as an option. It is written in a manual for Japanese soldiers: “Save the last bullet for yourself.” They lived by the Japanese bushido code - as a warrior, failure was not an option; surrender was not an option. This is also evidenced by the way that many Japanese committed suicide upon hearing of defeat, especially leaders, who performed seppuku on themselves. In the state of total war, civilians were heavily invested and this, too, is shown by the fact that in Saipan, maybe everyday citizens committed suicide in an alarming mass - even mothers with their children in arms jumped off cliffs, so as to avoid the devastation of the Allies' victory.
There were windows of opportunity to surrender - it was just that the Japanese did not particularly like them. For example, the Allies offered the Potsdam Declaration. It is true that the Allies wanted nothing less than unconditional surrender and nothing really guaranteed it quite like the atomic bomb. Another opportunity was after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The Japanese and the Americans likely would not see eye to eye on surrender, if not for the threat of the atomic bomb, and even then, it would be because of much duress - duress that Americans had no choice but to use in order to save their own.
A blockade or a continuation of the bombing campaign are often brought up as alternatives to dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. However, the other options simply were not worth the resources, time or lives needed. Dropping the atomic bomb was also the quickest of the Americans’ options – even more so by the way it detonates before even reaching the ground. To play the morale card, it is often said that the bombing campaign was more effective in taking lives than the atomic bomb. Therefore, one can deduct that at least a few lives (to say the least) were spared by the decision to use the atomic bomb, over that of the bombing campaign. In terms of cutting off the Japanese and waiting for them to starve to death – was that really any more humane?
It was a state of total war and nothing less could have been expected. The name of one of the aircrafts used in the bombing of Hiroshima says it all – Necessary Evil.
When the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was justifiable. Many Japanese said they would never give up, so this was a way to surrender. The Americans were looking out for their country and many Americans just wanted the war to end. This is a war between Japan and America, obviously people are going to die, and it was up to the Americans whether it is American soldiers or Japanese civilians that lived.
America gave Japan the opportunity for an unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't take it. The Americans had warned the Japanese about the weapon they had been working on, and that it would cause lots of damage to Japan. But the Japanese would not surrender, some, would fight until they died. Japan didn't want to surrender, so America was justified when dropping the bomb, they knew it was the only way to have Japan surrender. It had to take a lot for Japan to surrender, and even after the first atomic bomb they hadn't surrendered. When people say the bombings weren't fair, or justifiable, they are wrong, when America gave Japan the warning to surrender, they wouldn't. They even warned them that if they didn't surrender they would destroy the Japanese homeland, so it isn't America's fault for having no other choice. They either continued to fight on and have many more soldiers die, or drop a bomb that shocks the world, and shows Japan that when America tells them to surrender, they surrender. There was no other choice to end the war. The Japanese wouldn't surrender and the Americans didn't want to risk more soldiers' lives.
War is war. You don't look out for the opponent – you look out to kill them, to defeat them. It's not America's responsibility to try to kill less Japanese than Americans. Americans are going to look out for themselves – that's how any country would think. Someone from Tokyo wrote about "how many thousands and thousands of helpless men, women, and children died and suffered," but that's what war is. People die, and innocent people are going to get in the way. Innocent people in the Philippines were killed by many Japanese and American soldiers, but there is nothing people can do about it. America was out to do one thing, and that was to get Japan to surrender, and when they didn't do that, they were going to destroy them. America wanted this war over, and if it meant killing thousands of innocent by standards, then so be it. In dropping the bomb the Americans actually saved many people's lives, they saved many Japanese and American soldiers from fighting and killing each other. America wanted to protect their soldiers and sadly that meant to kill Japanese. People say the Americans weren't justified in dropping the atomic bombs, but how else were they going to end the war. They needed something quick and shocking that would scare the Japanese far away.
The use of the atomic bomb to end the Pacific war was justified. America needed something big enough to get Japan to surrender and it took something as big as not one, but two atomic bombs to do so. They wouldn't surrender to America, so America had no other choice. Whether they dropped the atomic bomb or not, people would have died, America had the right to end the war as fast as possible; they didn't want to wait any longer.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war in the Pacific was justifiable, as it did just that – it ended the war. The Japanese were known for fighting to the death rather than surrendering, and for being fully prepared to give their lives up for Emperor Hirohito. To Japan, surrender was out of the question, and not an option. The Potsdam Conference in July 1945 gave Japan one last chance for total, unconditional surrender (The Potsdam Declaration), and was then further modified, asking for the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces. However, the Japanese were fanatic about winning the war for their homeland, and Emperor Hirohito did not see surrendering his army as an option. So even with the modifications to the Declaration, the bomb was necessary as the Japanese’ determination needed to be broken. That Emperor Hirohito never spoke outright about Japanese ‘defeat’ or ‘surrender’ upon conceding, only acknowledging that the war ‘did not turn in Japan’s favour’, this indicates the depth of Japanese resistance to the idea of defeat. The Japanese never had any intention of surrendering to the United States willingly, and throughout the war in the Pacific, made it clear that they would rather die than be apprehended by the opposing force. This tactic of never be captured, never break down, and never surrender – the Japanese code of ‘bushido’ – was extremely ingrained into the minds of the Japanese soldiers. The tenacity of these soldiers was evident in their willingness to either fight to the death or commit suicide before they had the chance to be captured. An example of this tenacity was Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, who did not surrender until 1974, after 29 years of continuing to fight in the Philippines. There were almost no survivors of the 30,000 soldier Japanese force in Saipan so deeply rooted was the notion that death was more honourable than surrender. In the last few desperate months of war, Japanese civilians also adopted this strategy. An example of this is in Saipan, where mothers were seen clutching their babies and hurling themselves off cliffs to avoid being taken prisoner. The civilians who populated Japan were trained to fight invaders as well, which also showed that the Japanese did not plan on surrendering easily or willingly. Further evidence of Japan’s determination is found in the American interception of the Japanese Imperial Army and Naval messages that outlined the plan of the final attack by the Japanese on the Americans, and showed that Japan’s armed forces were ready to fight a “final Armageddon battle”. This was additionally reinforced by the fact that they had built over 8000 aircrafts, many of which were Kamikazes, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, and over two million soldiers trained in the code of “bushido”. The Japanese had believed that the Americans were going to invade via land, and therefore had a plan to hit them with everything they had when they did arrive. The intent was to leave the Americans with many casualties, hopefully break their will, and stop them from trying to force surrender from Japan. If this was unsuccessful, the Japanese planned to continue the fight through guerrilla warfare. In the end, it would take two atomic bombs to break them. The use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese is further justified by the fact that although the losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were awful, it was not as terrible as the number of lives on the sides of both the Americans and the Japanese as a result of an invasion. When looking at the 250,000 Japanese militia and civilians killed at Okinawa, there were approximately 20 Japanese casualties for every one American. Using these numbers we can calculate that at least two million Japanese would have died in the invasion.
The use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be considered in the context of its time - a context in which the concept of Total War had been adopted by both sides. In this context the distinction between civilians and combatants had virtually collapsed. Moral standards had been redefined by actions by both sides. The bomb ended the war in the Pacific in favour of the Americans, as well as shortened the war and saved thousands of not only American, but Japanese lives. Without the atomic bomb, “hundreds of thousands of civilians in Malaya and Singapore, and millions in Japan itself, would have perished”. The atomic bomb was the fastest and most efficient life-saving decision to be made. That the decision to use atomic warfare in this context was justified in no way lessens the horror it inflicted.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable. The warnings given to Japan, the lives ultimately saved and the concept of total war are three major supporting arguments.
It is important to note Japan was given countless opportunities to surrender. The Americans told Japan of the destruction of their land and people that could occur, but the Japanese ignored these warnings. The United States even changed the unconditional surrender of Japan, to the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces. Even after the first atomic bomb (called “Little Boy”) was dropped in Hiroshima, the Japanese refused to surrender. The United States did attempt to avoid the atomic bombings, but the actions of the Japanese showed that they were not going to surrender through traditional methods.
General Douglas MacArthur’s army reported that an invasion of Japan would result in 47,000 deaths; however, the growing belief among historians is a number closer to over 2 million dead. It is safe to assume (as it had happened in Okinawa) that civilians would have been asked to commit suicide as the Americans approached. This concept is known as “bushido”- Japanese should die for the Emperor before surrendering for the enemy. American soldiers witnessed this as women jumped off cliffs with their babies. Men, women, young boys and young girls were trained to fight American soldiers. The war that was expected to last 50 weeks of brutal, person to person combat was ended in less than a week after the atomic bombs. While this sadly cost the lives of many Japanese, and incredible suffering, in the end the atomic bombs saved potentially millions of lives.
The definition of total war is the complete mobilization of fully available resources and population. Both countries were in this mode- Japan showed this by using women and children to fight, and America did this by using the atomic bomb. It is important for the leader of a country to have their own citizens as a priority. President Truman decided to save his own citizens, instead of Japan’s.
The atomic bombs were reasonable because Japan was warned of the coming destruction and ignored it, millions of lives were saved, and both countries were in a state of total war.
The atomic bomb is probably one of the most debatable events of the entire war, with the death tolls and the utter destruction of not one but two cities it is no surprise. This does not mean that it was un justifiable though, quite the opposite, it made the most sense and was completely justified. The Japanese were unwilling to surrender under any circumstances; they were completely devoted not only to Emperor Hirohito but also to the code of Bushido. Both the devotion to the emperor and the tradition of Bushido meant that at the core no Japanese citizen or soldier would ever surrender, surrender making anyone less than human in the eyes of both the emperor and society.
The code of Bushido teaches every person from the time that they are just a child to never surrender, never stop fighting and that suicide was more honorable than being taken a prisoner. If we look at the battle of Iwo Jima we see a perfect example of just what the Japanese would sacrifice for their country. Even though the Japanese were hopelessly outnumbered and out gunned they fought to the death. Almost every single soldier on Iwo Jima would follow the code of Bushido, either fighting until they were dead or committing suicide if they could no longer fight the enemy. This fanatical resistance was seen not just on Iwo Jima, but every single piece of territory that the Japanese held. This fanaticism made it just that much easier for the Americans to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If we look at the firebombing campaigns that the Americans also adopted we see approximately 10,000 dead, burned alive in the firestorms of Tokyo. Similarly we see approximately 10,000 dead from the atomic bomb, now what is more humane to do to a population of civilians, put all 10,000 through the agony of being burned alive, or just vaporize them with an atomic bomb? Yes there are radiation issues such as Leukemia, but still what is better, 10,000 burned alive or 3,000 Leukemia victims?
Now Japan was well aware that they had lost the war against America, but instead of surrender they planned for one final Armageddon battle on the home island of Honshu. This plan required the devotion of the entire population, men, women, children even school girls were taught how to fight off the Americans if they were to land on Honshu. They were trained to fight to the death, which would hopefully make a diplomatic deal with America plausible once the casualties rose too high. We still see this fanatic devotion demonstrated by Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda when it took him until 1974 to finally surrender and lay down his arms. If there were people so fanatical about never surrendering just imagine the death toll if the Americans had gone for a land invasion.
Is it not a leaders job to think about his country and citizens first, and others second? So if the atomic bomb is so unjustified, one cannot believe in total war. As Father John Siemes once said “it seems logical to me that he who supports total war… cannot complain of war against civilians”.
The American’s use of the atomic bomb to end the war of the Pacific was justified. Not only did it effectively serve its main purpose, it also saved many American and Japanese lives in the long run.
The main reason that the atomic bomb was dropped was to end the war of the Pacific without the unnecessary sacrificing of American lives. Based on the death toll at Okanawa, 20 Japanese dead for every 1 American, the estimated numbers for an invasion of the home islands was close to 2 million Japanese and 100,000 Americans dead. The U.S. did not want to endanger their soldiers when there was another, safer alternative and the atomic bomb served as just that.
When looking at numbers, it is instrumental to look at the number of civilians killed by the incendiary bombs dropped on Japanese cities earlier in the war of the Pacific. The number of Japanese killed by the Tokyo firestorm is roughly the same number as were killed by the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, the only difference is that those killed in Tokyo were burned alive whereas the those killed in Hiroshima were instantly vaporized.
The lack of surrender by the Japanese was another reason that justified the use of the atomic bomb. From a young age the Japanese are taught to fight until the death and to never surrender. The samurai code of bushido – “way of the warrior” – states that in surrendering you dishonouring not only yourself but also your people, therefore it can be rightly assumed that the Americans would be faced with extreme resistance in the case of an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Since the Japanese had reacted well to terror bombing, it seemed the only thing that would get Hirohito to admit he could not win the final battle would be a highly destructive and spectacularly frightful bomb.
The Americans were also quite convinced that the Japanese would never accept the Potsdam Declaration, thus would never accept unconditional surrender. Japan wanted to open up negotiations to not only ensure their emperor would be safe but also to keep Japan unoccupied by American forces in the case of their surrender. When looking at those demands, the Americans acknowledged that the Japanese really had no intention of surrendering. Behind the U.S.’s back, Japan was busy gathering thousands of aircraft, hundreds of Kamakazi suicide-boats, an army of over two million and a huge civilian militia. The Japanese intended to hit the Americans with everything they had in one final attempt to defeat the U.S. therefore to prevent the deaths of thousands of Americans, the bomb was the necessary solution.
Some people are of the opinion that the dropping of the atomic bomb was unethical because of the extensive damage and the later radiation poisoning. It is not false that the bomb did destroy both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it did cause disease and further death in months and years to come after the initial explosion, however that was a simple repercussion of a necessary act. The demolition was inevitable. Just like with the area bombing, the cities had been leveled and immense repairs would have to be done. The cancer caused by radiation from the bomb was not something that the Americans could have foreseen. The bomb had been tested on a secluded, uninhabited island where no data about the effects on the human body were collected. Also, the Americans did not completely intend to kill thousands of civilians for just days before they had dropped leaflets on the cities warning the citizens of the danger.
Another common counter argument is that the atomic bomb was not necessary, for the U.S. could have simply continued with the naval blockade and the Japanese would have had no choice but to surrender due to lack of resources. However, there is no concrete evidence that shows the naval blockade was indeed working. Also, in terms of ethics, the naval blockade would have been much slower and more painful for the Japanese because they would be forced into submission through starvation. Therefore, the atomic bomb was, in this case, a much more ethical way to mollify the Japanese resolve and mould them into surrendering.
When piecing together all the evidence that shows the American’s reasons for dropping the atomic bomb, the fact that it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and that it shocked the Japanese into surrendering thus effectively ending the war fit together to make the dropping of the bomb justified. The death of many Japanese civilians was a tragedy but in war, “any leader who puts the lives of enemy civilians ahead of his own people should not be leading.” Truman made an extremely difficult decision, but in the end it was the right one.
The atomic bomb being dropped on the Japanese by the Americans in World War II was justified, for many reasons. The main one being it ended the war in a quick manner, something both sides wanted. Since the war ended faster, it spared an innumerable amount of lives, of both soldiers and civilians. Based on the number of Americans killed in Okinawa and Saipan, it was deduced that if they could lose approximately 80 thousand to 100 000 men, with 300 000 to 320 000 being wounded. Obviously, if they had a way to win the war that would save lives, they should use it. What kind of a leader would put the lives of the enemy’s civilians before his own soldiers? Dropping the atomic bomb was justified and necessary. In fact, it saved the lives of many Japanese soldiers and especially civilians as well. The Allies were using other techniques to get Japan to surrender, but evidently none of them were working. After the bomb was dropped, many naval officers claimed their blockade was going to cause the Japanese to surrender, but we will never know if that’s true. The Americans could have kept using the classic incendiary bombs, but it would have put more American lives at risked and used more resources. They had already put billions of dollars into developing this new technology, and told people about how they had a “secret weapon.” But would they have ever surrendered without the bomb? What was known about the Japanese was that they stayed true to their emperor. It was extremely dishonourable for a soldier to be captured or surrender, and those who did were shunned. The concept of bushido or “the way of the warrior” states that they will not surrender. It is a very ancient term that stems from the Zhou Dynasty (1111–256 BCE) and dictates that “samurais” – or in this case Japanese soldiers – will carry themselves with frugality, loyalty, martial arts master and honour unto death. The fact that this ideology has been in their culture for so long may give us some clue why so many of them followed it. Another example of the Japanese determination to win would be the kamikazes. Average men were willing to give up their lives to die a very dramatic death for their emperor and their country. Even when the Japanese knew they could not win, they were determined to take out as many Americans as possible (“Kill 10 American soldiers for ever Japanese soldier.”) It is also important to acknowledge that the civilians also had this mentality, they were trained to fight (i.e. schoolgirls) but also committed suicide (mothers jumping off cliffs in Saipan with their babies.) Some people argue that the Japanese were trying to negotiate with the Soviets to surrender. While this is probable, they wanted an unconditional surrender, which was not possible seeing as they had caused so much damage throughout this war. It can also be argued that they were just trying to keep the USSR out of the war for as long as possible. Coincidentally, there were in fact actual times where the Japanese could have surrendered had they wanted to: Potsdam Declaration. Unfortunately, Emperor Hirohito saw this as a sign of weakness. Justifying the atomic bomb may seem like an immoral thing, because the bomb was so devastating. Do people really think the Americans (or anyone, for that matter) knew how grotesque the aftereffects would be? The Manhattan Project had only been tested in New Mexico, where the scientists were able to see the explosion. At this point, no one knew about “nuclear fallout” because it had not been tested on humans. The second justification is simply that war is war. In fact, this was a total war, where no man or woman, soldier, civilian or child was off limits. As horrible as that sounds, it is the truth. In conclusion, the atomic bomb was justified seeing as it saved so many lives, both American and other. They had no other choice, it was necessary, and it was a (gruesome) success.
The use of the atomic bomb by the Americans to end the war in Japan was absolutely justifiable.
The Japanese had no intention of surrendering, as shown in the way they were training their citizens (who were part of a large civilian militia) to fight until the death, and to kill as many American soldiers as they possibly could. As shown in Okinawa, which resulted in 100,000 Japanese casualties and 150,000 civilian Okinawan casualties, the Japanese were given a "quota" as to how many soldiers they could kill before they were allowed to die. They also killed many civilians themselves for not doing what they wanted, which accounted for many of the civilian casualties in this battle. Seeing as this took place on a Japanese Island that was not necessarily the "home island", there is no telling to what lengths the Japanese would have gone through and how many people (including their own) they would have killed before surrendering their biggest island. The Japanese also lived on the honour system of "Bushido", which gave them the mindset that it was better to die than to be captured by the enemy. This was demonstrated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where kamikaze attacks were introduced in a desperate measure by the Japanese to fend off the Americans. Again, seeing as how this was used in an area that was not traditionally Japanese, there is no telling what the Japanese would do to protect their home island. The Japanese were already under a naval blockade, and although many Japanese were already facing starvation, they still did not surrender. It is unreasonable to say that the Americans could have "waited them out", as that would have meant wasting many valuable resources.
If the Americans had invaded Japan, rather than dropping an atomic bomb, there would have been many more American casualties. Truman took this into consideration when he decided to drop the bomb. Although it is debatable how many more or less Japanese lives would have been lost without the bomb, there is no doubt that Truman would not have been a good leader if he thought about Japanese lives more so than he did the lives of his own people. No matter the figures, it is indubitable that more American lives would have been lost had the bomb not been used.
The Americans had also warned the Japanese before about the weapon, even dropping leaflets telling the civilians to evacuate. This made it clear that the Americans had little intentions of actually killing civilians, which is a lot more than what the Japanese could say, seeing as they were teaching people in the hospitals to suicide bomb American tanks. They also did not know the full extent of the effects of the atomic bomb, as they had never before tested it on humans; they had only observed the effects that it had on land during their testing. From what it seems, the Americans seemed to have had more care for civilian lives than the Japanese did, as the Japanese did not have much regards as raped their way through Manchuria and trained Japanese school girls to kill American soldiers.
It would have been even more inhumane had the Americans firebombed the Japanese instead of dropping an atom bomb, as they would have suffered burns, been burnt alive and suffocated to death with this method. Another method, starvation due to the naval blockade, would also have been more inhumane as well, as their death would have been slow and painful, and they would have been living in poverty as supplies grew scarce. There are stories of mothers in Saipan hurling themselves and their babies off of cliffs at the presence of American soldiers; would it really have been more humane to sacrifice American lives, whose mere presence would have brought on civilian deaths such as those?
Although it is stated that the Japanese had claimed to have been negotiating peace with the Russians, it was debunked as an attempt to delay a Soviet entry into the war, not a genuine attempt at peace negotiations. That being said, there was also a Japanese diplomat in the United States the day before Pearl Harbour, trying to to get the Americans to lift the trade sanctions, and that obviously did not work out too well for the Americans. Although these diplomats claimed to have no idea of what the military was planning, what is to say that if these claims were true, it was not the same cases here?
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, as the Japanese would have never surrendered without a final fight, which would have resulted in thousands of casualties from both the Americans and the Japanese themselves. Some Japanese soldiers, such as Lieutenant Onoda, did not even accept that the war was over until 29 years after the war, which only confirms that they were not willing to surrender/submit into surrendering until they were either victorious or dead. More importantly, however, the bomb brought the war to a much needed end and saved many American - and many potential (as they were just figures) Japanese - lives.
The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. There are a few reasons why it was justified. One of these is that they saved more lives than they ended. If there was an invasion of Japan there would be many more casualties of US and Japanese soldiers as well as much more civilian casualties. Many soldiers on both sides would needlessly die, and civilians caught in the crossfire and hit during a continued US firebombing campaign would also die needlessly. Another reason is that they led to Japan surrendering. Before the bombs fell they were considering surrender, but they settled on continuing the war and were set on having an all out final battle when the US invaded. When the first bomb fell they still would not surrender, yet after the second bomb hit them they finally surrendered. The use of the atomic bombs is justified because of the lowered loss of life and helping end the war.
The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable. The Japanese were fighting vigorously and were refusing to surrender to the Americans, and were leaving the U.S with few choices, the best being to create the atomic bombs in the Manhattan Project and to end the war without invading, and therefore prevent the loss of tens of thousands of lives; not only American lives, but also in consideration of Japanese lives.
There were other ways to end the war in the Pacific, but none of which were comparable to the efficiency the atomic bombs would be such as the submarine blockade or continuing to invade by air with the fire bombing campaign. Although we cannot be exactly sure that other tactics could have ended the war besides the atomic bombs, we must trust that this choice was sure to cause surrender by the Japanese.
People complain about the fact that the atomic bomb was unethical and unnecessary, killing not only soldiers but also civilians. But this was a case of total war, and as said by John A. Siemes “It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians.” To add, without the use of the atomic bombs, it could have led to thousands more losses to the Americans, as well as Malaya, Singapore, and millions in Japan.
Another point to be put out is that the strategy of bombing. After a large amount of losses in Okinawa, 20 Japanese dead for every American, the death toll if there were to be an invasion of Japanese soil would duplicate many times. Since there was the opportunity to cause Japan to surrender with the chance to risk fewer American lives, they would bravely take on that opening.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable because of the fact that it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and that it forced Japan into surrender. Each Japanese soldier was trained to fight to death; it was dishonourable to surrender before death. The Americans took the initiative to end this way of thinking and bring an end to the war of the pacific which was the only reliable way to end the war at the time. Although it was horrid, it ended up saving many lives in the long run.
Of course the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified. Area bombing was not working ant an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have been far too costly of American lives for them to undertake such a thing. If they had had the atomic bomb at their disposal and not used it, and instead invaded, that would have been unjustifiable; because, it would have cost more lives in the end, American and Japanese, and Japan’s culture, government, and way of life would have been destroyed at the hands of the invading and occupying American forces. An invasion, one could equate to a slow dull irritation which would eventually subdue the victim. But the atomic bomb is more like a sharp, relatively short-lived, but agonizing pain and the Japanese would respond much better to the agonizing pain that no the slow dull defeat to the last man. The atomic bomb should be considered as a gift to the Japanese, because it made them realize that they had lost and that to fight to the last man is pointless and self-destructive. Also, it proved the might of the atomic bomb and it has never since been used in anger towards any entity due to the concept of mutual annihilation; and this may be considered as a gift to the whole world.
The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. The Japanese were given multiple chances to surrender, including the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, which asked for unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces. However, the Japanese saw surrendering as an impossible option. Japanese soldiers and civilians had been ingrained with the idea of “bushido,” which stressed loyalty and obedience, and more importantly the value of honour above life. The Japanese left the U.S. with very few choices about how to resolve the situation. In the end, the atomic bomb proved to be the most effective solution, as it killed less people than if the Americans had chosen to invade, and made the war end faster. It prevented the death of tens of thousands of people, for both Americans and Japanese, and both soldiers and civilians. If the Americans had decided against using the bomb, a lot more people would have been killed through unnecessary crossfire and been needlessly sacrificed. The U.S. did not want to endanger their soldiers, and the atomic bomb proved to be a safer alternative. As inhumane an atomic bomb may sound, it was in general a much easier and efficient solution to end the war.
The atomic bombing of Japan by the USA was justifiable to end the war in the Pacific and force surrender. The Japanese were under a strict no surrender code. Everyone from the army to school children were trained to attack the americans, protect their emporer and never surrender. To surrender was considered dishonorable and there would be a price to pay if you surrendered. Within the army soldiers who didn't follow the strict standards and codes were beaten. "Bushido" which meant to fight till death was a way of living for not only the army but all Japanese people. The army even punished people outside their forces as well. Soldiers would kill civilians that were not willing to give up food and shelter for the war effort. It got to a point near the end of the Pacific War where civilians began taking their own lives to avoid capture and disgrace. As a nation the Japanese gave were to give everything they had to war and had trained themselves to die at any moment.
The atomic bomb was also justifiable to force a surrender because Japan as a nation was not 100% no surrender. The atomic bombs were needed to bring the Japanese all under the ideal of surrendering. The government was willing to surrender but the army and nation would not. They made it out that they wanted to save their emporer but when the americans modified the terms to protect the emporer the offer was still refused. After the modification was made the Japanese government actually changed their position and didn't want a surrender. It became clear that no american occupation in Japan was more important. The use of the atomic bombs put the well being of the Japanese people of the importance of their land.
Another reason the atomic bombs were necessary were to save massive amounts of american and japanese lives. Truman, the american president at the time, didn't want any more bloody massacres to happen. If the americans were to invade Japan the losses in life would be great for both sides, people would needlessly suffer and die. It also saved many British lives as they were planned to come join the efforts in the Pacific after the war in Europe ended. The Japanese knew they could not win the war as well. Their goal was to inflict as many casualities in their opposition as possible. Japan wanted to fight a final Armageddon in which they hoped would break the American morale and sway the negotiations in the Japanese favor. In the end the bombing saved lives on both sides as it has been estimated that 20 japanese were killed for every one american. The saving of lives in war can not be underestimated making the use of atomic bombs to end the war justifiable.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan was successful in achieving its goals. Although immoral, it did end the war. The Japanese living in or near the areas of the target of the bomb, were warned to evacuate. Almost half the population that was warned had made their way out.
Hiroshima was of industrial and military significance. Military camps were located nearby such as the Headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters. Hiroshima was also a logistics base and communications center.
Japan was not going to surrender…
The Japanese followed a strict code, Bushido, which directed: “Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you.” Still 29 years after the war ended, Lietuenant Hiroo Onoda continued fighting on the Philippine island of Lubang. 1974 Lieutenant Onoda was forced to put down his arms. Another Japanese soldier, Yokoi, still carried his army rifle with him even though he knew the war was over. When the police approached him, he said he was too afraid to give himself up. Also, Kamikaze pilots went on suicide missions and drove their explosive-packed planes into the Allies ships.
Japanese prisoners returning from the previous war with Russia had been treated as social outcasts. They were shamed on for surrendering rather than taking their own lives. Not only did the army believe in death over surrender, civilians did too. Civilians were encouraged to suicide. American troops recall women jumping off cliffs with their children when they advanced into Saipan. Soldiers and civilians were committed to the rule of Bushido.
Japanese historians found out the plans of the Japanese for the summer of 1945. They had carried over 8000 aircraft, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, 2 million regular soldiers, and a civilian’s militia. At the Potsdam conference the Americans negotiated the conditions of the Japanese surrender. They would only ask for an unconditional surrender of the armed forces. This meant the Emperor would not have to surrender. Still, the Japanese rejected the declaration.
If the atomic bomb had not been dropped, the war would continue taking hundreds of thousands of lives. More lives would be lost than those that were lost due to the atomic bomb…
The Japanese were looting, raping, burning, and killing Chinese. Prostitution had been enforced in Korea; tens of thousands of young teens were used by the Imperial Army. Americans set up a blockade that limited Japans access to food and resources, thus starving many people. Also, the invasion of Japan would be initiated; therefore, killing hundreds of thousands of lives on both the Japanese and Allied side. Numbers were calculated based on averaged from the invasion of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. It is estimated that 2 million Japanese alone would die if an invasion deemed necessary. The former Prime Minister of Singapore stated: “Hundreds of thousands of civilians in Malaya and Singapore, and millions in Japan itself, would have perished.” If the war continued, these horrific actions would continue to take place. Many Japanese would also starve as the army was taking more than their portion of food to have enough strength when fighting the war.
People argue that the invasion of Manchuria alone by the Soviets would make Japan surrender; however, if the defeats at land and sea, blockades, and firestorms did not make Japan surrender, why would another land invasion cause them to? The Japanese had expected the Soviets invasion for months and they were prepared to fight against it. Also, people believe that the Americans dropped the atomic bomb to threaten the Soviets from spreading communism around the world. If this was true, the Americans would have dropped the bomb somewhere else so that the Soviets could see the effects of the bomb without having to take so many lives.
The atomic bomb ended the war, and that fact alone is enough to justify its use. Although Hiroshima was of military and industrial significance, “total war cannot complain of war against civilians.”
The use of dropping the atomic bomb on the Japan by the U.S in order to end the war in the Pacific is justifiable based solely one 3 key reasons - A speedy end to the war, to save a large amount of money, and to save millions of lives. For these reasons the dropping of the atomic bomb is reasonable and understandable.
The Japanese people thought it was dishonorable to surrender and they knew they would not go down without a fight. The Japanese were loyal to their emperor, Emperor Hirohito. They found it honorable dying for their emperor, as well as their country. The Japanese were passionate and courageous when they battled and would have most likely not have surrendered without the Americans use of the atomic bomb. The Japanese were tenacious and determined in winning the battle in the Pacific without surrendering and they would give everything they had in order to win, even if it meant battling until death. The Americans thought the use of the atomic bomb would bring the Japanese to their knees and surrender because the Americans knew that the Japanese would not surrender and give up that easily. Japan had no intentions on surrendering. “it had husbanded over 8,000 aircraft, many of them kamikazes, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, and over two million well equipped regular soldiers, backed by a huge citizen’s militia. When the Americans landed, The Japanese intended to hit them with everything they had.” Americans believed that by dropping the atomic bomb on Japan then it “would secure the speedy and unconditional surrender of Japan” by taking away their will to carry on, by taking away their courage, by executing their determination and passion. Ultimately, the dropping of the atomic bomb would help contribute in ending the battle in the Pacific and force Japan into surrender. Furthermore, the Americans wanted to end the war and use the atomic bomb in order to impress the Soviets, the American leaders considered the dropping of the bomb an advantage in negations with the Soviets and then would ultimately lead to a hardening of the American position at Potsdam.
“How many thousands of helpless men, women and children would have needlessly died and suffer…?” This quote illustrates the sacrifice of multiple innocent civilians and soldiers that would take place if the dropping of the atomic bomb did not take place. It makes a lot more sense taking the lives of a few Japanese rather than taking even more lives whether it is American lives of Japanese lives. Yes, the death poll due to the atomic bomb was upsetting; however, it was necessary before more and more of innocent children, women, men, and soldiers would die. The Americans knew they were too weak and would not be able to fight in one and last final ‘all or nothing’ battle between Japan and America, so in order to save lives, the decided to spend money on creating the atomic bomb and finally deciding to drop in on Japan. The dropping of the atomic bomb also meant saving a large portion of money. Hopefully by dropping the atomic bomb the Japanese would immediately surrender down the road and help end the Battle in the Pacific. This would save money on food, machines, war materials, and equipment. The money saved could be spent on other necessities else where.
American Politicians would have gladly negotiated an end to war more generous than unconditional surrender with the Japanese but the Japanese determined to fight in a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion, however, the American president believed the American soldiers would not last because they were too brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. Even after the first bombing the Japanese still did not desire to surrender. The Allies even gave them a chance to re-evaluate their decision but still, Japan did not want to surrender even after they knew what the outcome was. Japan knew the damage it caused to many properties, the number of people killed or injured, and the effect it had on so many Japanese people. Sadly, the Japanese did not choose to stand down to the Allies and the second bombing had to occur. It was not until after the second dropping of the atomic bomb that the Japanese finally surrendered.
Altogether, dropping the atomic bomb in order to stop the battle in the Pacific against the Japanese is justifiable because it was to secure the speedy and unconditional surrender of Japan. The bomb was used so it could lower Japan’s confidence with their will to never surrender and put an end to their determination, passion, and courage. The Japanese did have a warning of the second bombing and a chance to surrender but chose not to accept it. The atomic bomb was necessary to put an end to the war. It is better losing a smaller amount of people rather than losing a larger amount of civilians and soldiers on both sides. It saved the Americans a large amount of money that they could spend on other important things, and helped end the battle a lot faster. All is fair in love and war.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan by the united states to end the war in the pacific can be justified. The atomic bombs brought the war to an end more quickly if they hadn’t dropped the bomb and it saved more lives in the long run, if the Americans and Japanese were to keep fighting more Americans lives would have been lost if the war had continued. the Japanese had no intentions of surrendering in the first place even after the first atomic bomb had been dropped Japanese soldiers were ruthless and dedicated to the war and refused to surrender and so the second atomic bomb eventually made the Japanese surrender
The use of the atomic bomb was justified as it was horrid yes, but it saved many american and japanese lives. The fighting at Okinawa was terrible and you can only think of how much worse it would be if the Japanese home islands were invaded. Yes the Russians in Manchuria probably made the Japanese go "well we're kinda screwed" but I think the threat of continuous atomic bombs is what made then surrender.
On August 6th 1945 a nuclear uranium bomb “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima and on August 9th a nuclear plutonium bomb “Fat man” was dropped on Nagasaki. The Japanese surrendered 5 days later on August 14th. The president of the U.S at the time: Truman, important policy makers, and the military alike almost unanimously agreed to the drop these nuclear bombs. But was this decisions right? This is a highly debatable question, and much guilt has been given to the “victims” of these bombings. Based on the evidence that the Japanese were willing to sacrifice themselves for their country, the Soviet role was minimal, that no other alternative to invasion was present, and mainly for the reason that it would have cost more Japanese and American deaths. It is clear from many forms of evidence that an invasion of Japan would have been more costly than the bomb. From the nuclear bombs of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki the death toll from the time of the event totalled about 140,000. An invasion would have been much more costly for the reasons that: an invasion requires much more troops then 140,000 for American offensive and Japanese defensive, that the Japanese were planning a fierce enough resistance to force a negotiated settlement with the “weak willed” Americans, but also for the reason that the Japanese were almost unwilling to surrender. In Japan to surrender was socially dishonourable, and dying for one’s country and emperor was an honour. The Japanese had a code of ethics called the ‘bushido’ which was a code of the Samurai (the Japanese medieval knight). Surrender in this code of ethics was dishonourable; one would kill himself and fight to the death before having the dishonour of being a prisoner. The Japanese would be in social exile if they came home after surrender. An example of this is that in after the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905 the returning prisoners were treated as social outcasts. An extreme example of the determination of the Japanese to never surrender is Lieutenant Onoda. Lieutenant Onoda survived in the jungle for 29 years after the war finished, and couldn’t be flushed out militarily or told by Humanitarians that told him the war was over. He had never received formal orders to surrender so he followed the code of honour of the Japanese people and soldiers. On the Philippine island of Lubang, Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda finally layed down arms on March 9, 1974. The Japanese will to never surrender would have cost huge casualties for the Americans and Japanese when invading the homelands. The Japanese would be most determined to sacrifice themselves when protecting their homelands. The best example of self-sacrifice is in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Iwo Jima and Okinawa are considered Japanese territory, but were exterior islands from the home islands. The Japanese knew full well before the American invasion of Iwo Jima and Okinawa that they would never be able to defend the islands, but were only able to cost the Americans as many casualties as possible and to create time to prepare Honshu for American invasion. In Okinawa there were about 49,000 American casualties and about 250,000 Japanese military and civilian deaths. These high casualties for not a great purpose were just for the outer islands. For the home islands the Japanese prepared for thousands of kamikazes, trained hundreds as suicide bombers, created a civilian militia and trained many civilians in the country.
I this the Use of the Atomic bomb on japan by the U.S to end the was in the pacific was justified because By the end of the war, most of Japan's major cities had been destroyed by U.S. air attacks and the Americans were looking for a city in japan that was still standing The size and the shape of the city was suited to the destructive power of the American bomb called “little boy” . Because Hiroshima had not been bombed, the effects of the “little boy” would be easy. The bomb called “fat man” was droped on the city Nagasaki and they were dropped 2 days apart from each other. The Americans wanted to wipe out as many Japanese to cause them to surrender the war with out the Americans losing too many men. About 90,000 people were killed immediately; another 40,000 were injured, many of whom died in protracted agony from radiation sickness. Three days later, a second atomic strike on the city of Nagasaki killed some 37,000 people and injured another 43,000. Together the two bombs eventually killed an estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians. The Americans got help in the war against the Japanese when the Soviets went in and attacked Manchuria. At this point the Japanese still didn’t surrender until 5 days after the second bombing. Yes the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified because despite the amount of Japanese civilian casualties this move had to bo made for the Japanese USA rivalry to end. The Americans ended the war with 2 quick moves without killing very many of its own men.
I think that in times of total war, it was justified to throw the atomic bomb. Americans already spent money on it and it worked so why not use it to their advantage? There would be no point in knowing you created something that can save your own men’s lives and not using it. Secondly, there are studies that are done that were based on the battles in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The studies showed for every American soldier that was killed, 20 Japanese soldiers died. Hence the estimate for casualties in Japan would be close to 2 million. There were also lots of civilians that committed suicide during the battles or were killed in crossfires. Many Japanese soldiers were killing their own people because they refused to give them food. There were other alternatives to invading Japan, such as continuing the bombing of the cities. However, this method would have also have made the casualties high on both sides. In addition, I truly believe that the Japanese would not have surrendered any other way. The infamous Bushido code taught soldiers to see war as an act that could purify themselves, the nation and the whole world. “Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die and leave no ignominious crime behind you.” This is an accurate quote to demonstrate the mentality of many soldiers. The fact that it was such an overwhelming surprise is what finally got the Japanese to surrender.
I believe that the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima by the US was justified. The US had closed in on Japan at that point and was faced with invading the mainland of Japan. The Americans were very hesitant about going through with this, because from what they had faced in Okinawa, it was going to be a very long and costly battle. If the Americans were to invade Japan, there would be a HUGE loss of life on both sides due to the resilience and willingness to die for their country of the Japanese. The Americans wanted to find another way of ending the war in the quickest way possible and without directly invading. The atomic bomb was the best idea they would think of. By dropping the bomb, they actually killed less people than they estimated would be if they invaded. By using the bomb, they may have killed many Japanese people, but it is less people than what would have been if the US troops had invaded.
Yes, the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified. The Japanese were not planning to surrender and give up anytime soon and started to fight harder with different tactics as the Americans started fighting on their turf. The US The use of the Japanese kamikazes was damaging the American fleet and they had to bring the war to a quick end with the least amount of casualties. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki. 22,000 Japanese soldiers alone died at the battle of Iwo Jima and that was the population they started off with. 216 japanese surrendered while the rest died in combat. That shows that the Japanese would not have given up anytime soon and if the fighting was on the Japanese mainland, they would not have given up leading to a lot more deaths. The Japanese found more honor in suicide then to surrender therefore Japan would not have given up. They didn’t even give up when the saw the first effects of the first bomb on Hiroshima. The dropping of the atamic bomb also frightened other countries making them intimidating and other countries will not mess with them anymore. The fact that they were under total war and the bombing of allied cities and German cities was already happening, the atomic bomb was just another stage of bombing. It was just a bigger bomb that ended up winning the war with the help of the Russians.
The atomic bomb used on Japan was not justified. I believe this because American air force supremacy was already close to defeating japan, so it was not necessary. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were civilian cities. Most of the people affected by the bomb were civilians and not military member. It is trues that lives were saved, but those lives were only American and it is not fair to think that American lives are more important, when the fact is that we are all people. Also, Japan had already been seen as defeated with no navy, no air force, armies losing in China, American bomber in the sky, and the Soviet Union declaring war on them. Japan was at a loss over American superiority over their skies and sea, Japan couldn’t even shoot down unguarded bomber which carried the atomic bomb. This evidence shows that without the atomic bomb, japan was already close to defeat. The blockade was working and japan had lost resources to fuel their people and fuel their industry. Killing innocent people should not be justified especially for military purpose. Finally, the many after affects the Japanese civilians was unbearable. No amount of suffering should be placed on people because of the need for victory in the war especially since it is only estimated that many would be saved. As you can see, for many reason the use of the atomic bomb was in no way justifiable.
I believe the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified. The Japanese were taught to fight to the very last man and never give themselves up for defeat so they were a very difficult opponent whose beliefs and loyalty would not be compromised. The Japanese would not consider surrender and the Americans wanted an end to the war that they felt had been going on too long and was becoming increasingly expensive. The Americans felt that the only option to the bomb was an invasion of Japan, which would cause extensive allied and Japanese casualties as well as an unwanted extension to the war. The Americans and their allies had also issued the Potsdam Declaration, an ultimatum for Japan to surrender or face destruction. Japan chose to ignore this ultimatum and the allies felt they were running out of options to deal with Japan and the expansion of their troops.
The main argument against the dropping of the atomic bomb was the loss of Japanese life. However, there is evidence that dropping the atomic bomb probably saved many future lives. Unfortunately, a world war is bloody and unfair and the loss of life is tragically inevitable.
The use if the atomic bomb on Japan by the US to end the war in the Pacific was definitely justifiable. Both sides of the war did not want this war to continue on much longer, and this gave the Americans the opportunity to end the war in the pacific once and for all.
First of all, there is no doubt the use of the atomic bomb saved lives. It clearly saved American lives by avoiding invasion, but based on the casualties from Okinawa, it also saved approximately 2 million Japanese lives as well. Compared to the 200,000 who died, that is a massive difference.
The use of the atomic bomb was also justifiable because the Japanese were by no means willing to surrender. The Japanese soldiers lived by the “Bushido” code, which meant they would fight to their death, and would rather kill themselves than surrender. Even some civilians lived this way, with the example of mothers holding their children and jumping off cliffs at Okinawa. Some may say that the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bomb was dropped, but this is untrue. The Americans gave the Japanese an opportunity to surrender at the Potsdam conference, prior to dropping the bomb, but the Japanese refused. The army was not going to give up. However, Japan was looking for loopholes, and the atomic bomb gave them that excuse to surrender, again justifying it.
Another argument used against the justification of the atomic bomb is that other strategies, such as a blockade or invasion, would have worked. Yes, it is possible that these strategies would have worked, but they would have drawn out the war even longer and many more casualties would have resulted. By using the atomic bomb, the Americans took the Japanese by surprise and were able to end the war very quickly.
When thinking of the issue of morality, it is hard to say where to draw the line. However, the other possible tactics the Allies could have used included firestorms and starvation from blocking off Japan’s supplies. These would have also resulted in excruciatingly painful deaths, and there would have been many more deaths this way as well. One must also consider that this was a time of total war, where citizens were considered targets. The Americans were mostly concerned about the lives of their own people, which is completely understandable. If the president had been worrying over Japan’s deaths, he would not have been a true leader of his country.
Overall, the atomic bomb ended the war quicker, less people perished, resulted in Allied victory; therefore, it was completely justified.
Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan by the US was justified as it brought World War II to an end. The bomb was designed to undermine the will of the Japanese to continue to fight. Not only was the bomb highly destructive, its visual effect would be tremendous (Unit XXIV. The Atom Bomb). The unwillingness of the Japanese to surrender is proven by their samurai code of ethics known as “bushido”. They would rather die than dishonour their lord. It is arguable that the Japanese may have negotiated to end the war but the Allies wanted unconditional surrender of the Japanese. American military also wanted to avoid another bloody campaign. The atomic bomb was a solution to end the war swiftly. The use of the atomic bomb brought a quick end to World War II, without the loss of more Allied troops.
The usage of the atomic bomb by the Allies on Japan was justified. There are a number of reasons for this. The atomic bomb was a strictly need-to-do basis, just like the bombing of German civilian areas in Europe. There was no specific grudge or personal revenge against the Japanese civilians killed in the atomic bomb, but it was simply what the Allies viewed necessary to end the war in the Pacific with enemies that seemed like they would never give up.
The Americans had seen much bloodshed at the war grounds of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese were determined beyond belief. They knew that they could not win in Iwo Jima or in Okinawa, but they were determined to at least delay the advance of the Americans in exchange for their lives. This determination was reflected in the Japanese kamikaze or the mindset of the Japanese civilians in the islands as well. The Americans felt that the Japanese would never surrender if such a dragged-out war was to continue, and they felt as though deploying the atomic bomb was the only feasible solution to force the Japanese to surrender without undergoing another lot of countless casualties.
Some may argue that by deploying the atomic bomb to save their troops, the Americans were advertently ranking the American soldiers’ lives above the ones of Japanese civilians. The decision to deploy the atomic bomb was made during wartime. To put it bluntly, the Japanese, whether civilian or not, were the enemies; the enemies that just refused to give up, that inflicted countless casualties on the side of the Americans. The Americans cannot be blamed for choosing the method of deploying the atomic bombs- this way, much less lives would be killed in comparison to an invasion of the Japan homelands, where the determined Japanese would undoubtedly fight and die rather than surrender.
The Americans had also warned the Japanese civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, time and time again, that the atomic bombs would be on their way soon. It was the Japanese civilians that chose to ignore the warnings. Compared to the continuous incendiary bombings of Tokyo, one may even argue that the atomic bombs were actually fairer as the Japanese were given many warning prior to the actual attack.
Two million soldiers with an enormous Japanese civilian militia were what the Americans would have to face should they have chosen the route of invasion. As long as the Japanese even held an inkling of hope that they stood a chance against the Allies, they would continue fighting. The atomic bomb stopped this by showcasing the technological superiority the Americans had, what they could accomplish with a few deployments. The atomic bomb managed to capture the rallying Japanese off guard, and demoralize them. While the atomic bombs did cause many civilian deaths- which were preventable, as the Americans had warned them again and again- it was a sure-fire way to prevent even more casualties on both sides from happening if an approach such as an invasion had taken place. Because of these reasons, the American bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was not only justifiable, but needed, to end the war without many more losses.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war was definitely justified. Japan had little interest in surrendering and because of the bomb the Americans did not have to invade Japan sparing their life’s and Japanese as well. The Japanese were trained to never surrender and to kill as many Americans as they possibly could. There is an argument that the Japanese were close to surrendering but that is a false statement because the Americans intercepted messages between the Japanese plans to fight a final battle against the Americans if they invaded which wasn’t the case. There is also a case that if the Americans invaded the Japanese the death toll would have been approximately the same as Okinawa which was 20 Japanese deaths to the American 1 which would be approximately 2,000,000 Japanese soldiers and civilians dead for the Americans 200,000. From these numbers the atomic bomb can be seen as saving life’s because approximately only 140,000 from both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were killed instantly. The bomb was the best way to end the war because it was the safest way to insure that less Americans and Japanese would be killed compared to an invasion and it brought the Japanese to surrender.
The use of the atomic bomb on japan by the as was justified. ‘There were those who considered that the atomic bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas… I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt a position that rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives…’ Winston Churchill Yes the bombing sucked and it was cruel but then again this was a war being fought, they are no rules, no limits. The point of the war is to get what you want or win. And for some people there are no limitations in how far you will go. They were in total war and they had access to use something so powerful in helping them succeed so why not use it. The Japanese said themselves that they would never quit and always put 100% in fighting. They felt as though surrendering would be dishonorable This would make it extremely difficult for the war to end if the us hadn’t used the atomic bomb. The amount of lives that could have been taken is outrageously large, and although many lives were taken when the bomb was dropped it saved a much larger amount by ending the war. The Japanese succeeding in completing what it was supposed to accomplish demoralize the Japanese and get them to surrender.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified by means to end the war. The Japanese and the Americans were suffering many casualties and the Japanese were starting to go Kamikaze on the Americans. The Japanese were not going to let up any time soon, they would rather die than surrender. As dying was more honourable than surrendering. The Americans had won the race to nuclear arms, and had the right to use the bombs they had created. It was an act to end the war, and had saved lives on both sides. The alternate to the Americans would be to conduct an invasion on Japan, but with the suicidal side of Japanese soldiers, both sides would have lost many men. The Americans had also set a scale for nuclear warfare, and the money they had spent on the bombs made its use reasonable. It would also leave the world in a state of fear to use the bombs in the future.
The use of the Atomic Bomb by the American's was justified. It was said by the Japanese at the beginning that they would rather die than surrender. The American's knew that if they were to invade Japan with troops, it would not end well. There would be a lot of blood and a lot of not only American lives, but Japanese as well. By dropping the bomb, the war was ended much quicker than if it was fought in battle. There was little to no protest to the drop of the bomb so, Truman never doubted the fact of the bomb being dropped.
The American's had to think about their own troops and the wellfair of their people. Dropping the bomb on Japan was the only way to save lives and end the war. The American's accomplished what they set out to do by dropping the bomb; Japan surrendered.
Yes the use of the atomic bomb was justifiable. The Japanese were willing to fight to the death for their emperor and the Americans saw the bomb as a way to not only end the war, but to save their own soldiers lives. The casualties in the previous battles int he pacific had been outrageously high, and they knew that the number would only be higher once they actually launched an attack on the main land. The Japanese were not making fair negotiation offers, and basically wanted to be let off easy, have the guarantee of their emperors safety, and basically be let off easy without having to truly admit defeat. The things they were asking would have not been fair considering how much damage they did to the allies, and how much casualties had happened through the many battles. Yes the atomic bomb caused a very high amount of civilian casualties, but Americans must count the lives of their own soldiers at a higher degree one could say. The dropping of the atomic bomb was what made the emperor finally realize the full power of the Americans, and made him give up on the war. Only with the emperor coming to that realization would the Japanese had surrendered. The fire bombings of Tokyo did not work, the first dropping of the atomic bomb did not work, it really took the second bomb to finally make the emperor realize that they were not going to win. From statistics gathered from the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it is also estimated that the Americans would've lost around 1 million men, and without it, it also would have made it possible for the USSR to take over Manchuria, all of Korea, and northern provinces, so yes. The dropping of the atomic bombs is justifiable.
The Americans use of the atomic bomb on japan was indeed justifiable. I agree with what Winston Churchill said “it brought japan to her knees and ended the horrible war” I believe that if the war had gone on any longer more people would have died than how many people the bomb had killed. I think in the end the bomb saved lives as oppose to lives being lost. People have argued that the harshness of the bomb was unnecessary, but I say its just warfare. The whole point of this bomb was to weaken the will of the Japanese people to continue in the war. The atom bomb was an ideal terror weapon and extremely destructive. There were talks about the Japanese were apparently in the works of surrendering anyways, but I’m sure the Japanese felt that surrendering would be a dishonorable way to lose the war rather then just dying; so the bomb was a quick fix to get things done. The shock value of the bomb forced the Japanese to surrender, which is a great thing in my eyes. The atomic bomb was most definitely extreme, but it was the only way to get the Japanese to surrender and to put an end to the war. Although the dropping of this bomb is god awful, the Americans had avoided the need for an invasion of japan.
I believe that the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Japan was not justified. General MacArthur said that the number of American lives that could be lost in an invasion would be 47,000 compared to 150,000 Japanese citizens that were killed with the dropping of the atomic bombs. 150,000 were killed in the droppings, on top of that, there were many citizens who would die (A painful death) as an after effect of the Atomic Bomb, radiation. The Japanese people were prepared to fight to the death for Emperor Hirohito, Though Japan was already considering surrendering. If the Russia were to join in the invasion, Japan would not be able succeed. Japanese forces would not be able to handle The US and Russian forces. The Home Islands were beginning to starve, and they were to surrender, perhaps forcefully and maybe sometime soon. The damage upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki was truly morbid; the US even realized it when they landed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The conditions of the people were terrible. People saw burnt people coughing up and urinating blood with their hair falling out in clumps and soon to be dead. This are the reason I believe that the use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan was not Justifiable. They were considering to surrender, and most likely would, if Russia were to join in on the invasion. The use of the Atomic bomb was, in a sense, overkill.
It seems indubitable that the use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan by America was justified. It is almost certain that without it the Japanese would not have easily agreed to an unconditional surrender, and by using it countless American, as well as Japanese, lives would be saved. There were many indications during the war that led America to believe that Japan was not going to easily agree to an unconditional surrender. It was made obvious during the negotiations between Japan and the U.S.A. that the only way that the two countries would reach diplomatic peace was if America were to agree to numerous unreasonable demands, such as no allied occupation of Japan. Thus the only remaining action that America could take to end the war in the Pacific was to force Japan to surrender. One strategy that America used to accomplish this was to carry out a bombing campaign on Japan. During these raids one major target was Tokyo, where around 100,000 people died as a result of firebombing; this number is close to that of those killed in the Hiroshima bombing. These numbers show that though the atomic bombs did kill many people, this was not the first time that Japan had suffered an enormous loss due to an American bombing and still did not surrender as a result. More evidence of the Japanese doggedness to not surrender is obvious in their very nature during the war. The Japanese soldiers were steadfast and had a fanatical devotion towards their emperor. The Samurai practice of "bushido" encouraged the Japanese soldiers to die before even considering surrendering to the enemy. This belief was mirrored in many civilians of Japan as well as seen throughout the Pacific campaign. Countless Japanese civilians killed themselves and their entire families in the presence of American forces just to ensure that they would not be captured, even though the Americans had no policies to harm Japanese civilians. This evidence leads to the next point concerning the justification of the use of the Atomic Bomb. Though the two nuclear weapons claimed upwards of 150, 000 lives this is a small number when compared to the number of American and Japanese lives that would be lost if there was an invasion of the Japanese home island. As shown in previous battles such as Okinawa, the Japanese were fully prepared to fight to the death and American casualties would be exceedingly high. In conclusion sceptics of the Atomic Bomb need to remember that Japan was at total war, and the definition of total war is “A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants”. This clearly shows that the Japanese people were as much of a justifiable target as the Japanese military, and any possible action that America could take to stop Japan needed to be taken.
The use of the the atomic on Japan by the U.S. to end the end was justifiable. The atomic bomb was ultimately the lesser of the two evils when the amount of lives that were saved compared to the amount of lives that were lost is considered. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the death without hesitation. They were even willing to murder their own people let along enemy soldiers. Using the atomic bomb saved approximately 10 times more lives than if it had not been used. The U.S. governement’s plan b of a land invasion had become a lot more costly and a lot dangerous courtesy of the Japanese loyalty to their emperor. Due to the solid fact that the Japanese were ready and willing to die fighting, the only factor that would lead to a U.S. victory was that of shock. The shock value of the atomic bomb rocked the Japanese and was a tremenduous reason as to why they, in the end of it all, surrendered. Other reports suggesting that Japan was, in fact, preparing to surrender before the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man and Hiroshima and Nagashaki are false. These claims can be falsified by the knowledge of the amount of aircrafts , weapons, boats that had been collected and stockpiled for quite a while in preparation for a land invasion. Eight thousand aircrafts, hundreds of suicide boats, and millions of soldiers were being prepared. What Japan really wanted was for the Americans to go ahead with their plan for a land invasion in hopes to crush them and weaken them enough so that they would alter their terms of surrender. It was obvious by this point that by no means could a naval blockade nor a fire bombing campaign could stop the Japanese either. Consequently, the nuclear bombs were the only practical option remaining. The atom bombs insured a swift, blunt and less costly end to the war saving both Japanese and American lives.
The American use of the atomic bomb was a justifiable way to end the Pacific war. Based on the casualties suffered by both sides on the smaller islands leading up to the home island, the Americans were well aware that the cost of the final invasions would be extremely high for both sides, possibly more so for the Japanese considering their antiquated notions of honour and surrender. On Saipan, nearly all 30,000 Soldiers died, and 2 out of every 3 civilians also died. While approaching the island, American soldiers witnessed women holding their children launching themselves from cliffs instead of being taken as prisoners. This was still in the Marianas Islands, over 2,000 km from Okinawa and over 3000 from Tokyo. The tenacity of the Japanese can be easily seen in Lieutenant Onoda, who continued to fight for 29 years after the war had ended in the Philippines, holding firm to the mantra that Japanese soldiers “did not surrender, even in the face of insuperable odds.” The indoctrination of armed forces with the idea of “bushido” assured that all would fight with such tenacity.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese were steeling themselves against an invasion of the mainland, and were not prepared to surrender. When attempting to negotiate, they were demanding much more than the allies could permit, such as no occupation of Japan. By 1945, they had 8000 aircraft, hundreds of explosive packed boats, and two million well equipped soldiers. They intended to strike the Allies so strongly and cause such high casualties as to scare them off. Estimates of Japanese casualties if an invasion should occur were as high as 2 million, and Winston Churchill is quoted as stating the invasion would have cost the lives of 1 million Americans and a quarter million British.
Are these rough estimations enough to warrant the dropping of such terrible, terrible weapons? Yes. Father John Siemes, an eye witness stated “it seems logical to me that he who supports total war… cannot complain of war against civilians.” The Allies’ first and foremost concern is with the lives of their own soldiers. Any leader that puts the lives of enemy civilians ahead of his own peoples should not be leading.
Also, the idea that a continued bombing campaign would have ended the war seems preposterous. After the bombings of Tokyo, the Japanese people did not lose heart, they grew more resolved in their actions. The Allies gave them a number of chances to exit the war before hand, even going so far as to specify the innocence of the Emperor, but as stated before, they would not accept and underestimated the Americans. It is these reasons that lead me to believe the American use of the atom bomb was an entirely justifiable way to end the War in the pacific.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war in the Pacific was justifiable. The Japanese people were prepared to fight to the death for Emperor Hirohito; it is unlikely that they would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bomb. The Japanese were tenacious and resilient in their fight against the Americans. It is hard to see the Japanese surrender after seeing examples of their courageous and fanatical resistance on both Saipan and Okinawa.
ReplyDeleteMany Japanese soldiers were dedicated to fighting and dying for their Emperor. The samurai practice of "bushido" inspired the Japanese soldiers to fight until their last breath and to never surrender to the enemy. While some did surrender, many followed this code religiously and fought to the death or committed suicide if they had been defeated. The Japanese tenacity is perfectly demonstrated by Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda who continued fighting in the Philippines long after the war had ended. It was only until 1974 that he surrendered, this was nearly 29 years after the war had ended. The Japanese army's tenacity makes it seem unlikely that they would have surrendered to the Americans without a powerful force such as the atomic bomb.
The atom bomb let the Pacific War end in the Allies favour as well. The Japanese were looking for loopholes to make peace with the Allies while preserving the current system in place. The Japanese were trying to make deals with the USSR to not only guarantee the Emperor`s safety, but to also guarantee no Allies occupation of Japan. This is a completely unrealistic and unfair demand considering the amount of damage the Japanese did to both the property and people of the Allied nations and their overseas territories. The Japanese were not looking to surrender to the Allies, rather to preserve their government and escape the shame of defeat.
The Air Force`s strategic bombing campaign and the Navy`s blockade were not pushing Japan towards surrender as some might like to believe. The US Army Air Force was not as close to crippling Japan as it might like to think and their pleading to let the bombing of Tokyo continue was more part of their own ambitions. It was long known that the USAAF wanted to become a military body independent of the army and they feared the atomic bomb making the need for a large air force obsolete. The navy was exaggerating the effect of its blockade as well. While the Japanese population was starving, they by no means were prepared to surrender.
Emperor Hirohito only gave up once he truly realized the extent of the American`s power through the atomic bomb. This made the people of Japan give up. There is no doubt that the atomic bomb was the ultimate death blow needed to defeat the Japanese. Even Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall advocated the use of the atomic bomb to support an invasion of Japan. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, they were prepared to sacrifice everything in defence of their homeland and invasions of Manchuria and the Home Islands would not force them to submit. The Japanese people were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice and they like Hirohito became open to surrender only until they realized the futility of resisting the power of the atomic bomb. If anything the atomic bomb saved more Japanese lives than it took. As Professor Duncan Anderson said "The losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, but not as terrible as the number of Japanese who would have died as the result of an invasion." The atomic bomb was neither the wrong way nor the right way of forcing the Japanese to surrender. It was simply the only way.
I believe that the American dropping of the Atomic Bomb in Japan was not justified. Many justify the dropping of the Atomic Bomb by saying that it would have saved thousands of American and Allied lives because they wouldn't have to invade the homeland of Japan. What makes the value of American lives any greater than those of the Japanese civilians. The Japanese civilians weren't even apart of the war, their county was. It was calculated by General Douglas MacArthur that the total of American lives that would be lost in the event of an invasion would be 47,000. Sure that's a lot, but that's nothing compared to the total of 160,000 Japanese that were instantly killed during the dropping of the two atomic bombs. 160,000 were killed in the droppings, however, those who survived the initial droppings suffered a long, slow, excruciatingly painful death were not included in that figure.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Americans first landed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they came to a gruesome and disturbing realization of what the atomic bomb was really capable of. The landscape was grey and flatted, and there were thousands of people black from being burned. The people were coughing up and urinating blood, vomiting, and their hair was falling out in pieces. They were sitting in the streets -homeless- waiting to die. So tell me, how inflicting that on another human being is justifiable.
Another reason why the dropping of the atomic bomb wasn't justified was because Japan was already considering surrender. They knew that if the Soviets decided to join in on the invasion, they wouldn't be able succeed. The American and Soviet forces would be too much for the Japanese forces to handle. Also, the Home Islands were already beginning to starve, so they would be forced to surrender in the near future. Many will argue that Japan was not ready to surrender due to the fact that they were training school girls and other civilians. However, the civilians didn't have much of a choice. The Japanese soldiers were responsible for a lot of the civilian deaths in Okinawa, so the Home Island civilians could have been scared to oppose. There was also an investigation done, and the conclusion was that Japan would have surrendered just by the American air force.
The atomic bomb is a massive weapon that no country should possess. Chief of Staff to President Truman stated, "... we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.... wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
All of this being said, the atomic bomb cannot be justified.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan by the U.S to end the war in the Pacific was certainly not justified. It has been stated in our worksheets that it saved many American lives, although it seems to constantly ignore or fail to mention Japanese lives, it damage many more than the number of bodies they could count for dead. It affected more than countable morally the lives on many people over the world.
ReplyDeleteA popular argument to why it is justified is that Japan was not considered to surrender and this was the last option. Yet, in 1946 a report by the Federal Council of Churches stated, “..it seems clear that even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” This shows that Japanese were going to surrender without such an awful unnecessary atomic bomb. Another source from Fleet Admiral Chester Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, “..The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons..” thus supporting the firs statement and showing Japanese were already being brought down to their knees.
General Marshall of the U.S would support in no warning them, to produce the shock of surprise. But as well, it would shock many others even Americans, he would support the Atomic Bomb to demoralize the Japanese, although it even demoralized Americans. In Unit XXIV The Atom Bomb, It says how the primary reason for dropping the bomb was to secure the speedy and unconditional surrender of Japan. A secondary effect was to stiffen Truman’s attitude towards the Soviet Union. The cost of dropping an atomic bomb is certainly not worth a relationship with the Soviet Union.
The atomic bomb dropped on the city of Hiroshima, vanished 100 000 people in a split second. While the atomic bombing in Nagasaki killed another 40 000. While and un countable number of people got cancer from the radiation and died. Out of the people who survived the bombing, about 100 000 got radiation poisoning and died a painful lingering death. In our worksheet, The End of the War against Japan, it says how People saw hideously burnt people coughing up and urinating blood with their hair falling out in clumps waiting to die. This is absolutely terrible, and the Americans would say it was to prevent an invasion which could cost around 2 million more lives. Although there is no way of knowing the amount of people that would have died from an invasion. It could have been far less.
It is also argued by the U.S Navy own assessment, stating that their submarine campaign also brought Japan to its knees, that the home islands were on the verge of starvation and that this alone would have produced surrender, thereby obviating the need for an atomic bomb or invasion. In the same worksheet it is also shows and claimed that Japanese diplomats had been trying to open surrender negotiations with the U.S.
It is lastly stated, “Truman, decided to demonstrate America’s new power to the Soviets by bombing Japanese cities, even though he knew the Japanese were trying to surrender.
To conclude and support my argument, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” – M.K. Gandhi.
The use of the atomic bomb in the Pacific Theater was certainly justified, as it had brought Japan to surrender. By the beginning of August 1945, the U.S. was already at total war with the Japanese and total war meant that "all the nation's resources must be brought to bear on the goal of achieving victory." This indicated that the U.S. bore the responsibility of a) saving their own country men and b) bringing down the Japanese military, hence the use of any artillery or weaponry in order to defeat the enemy. The dropping of the atomic bomb was definitely a harsh blow onto the innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it was a quick and efficient way to end the war. The atomic bomb saved the lives of the Americans, the British, the Malayans, and the Singaporeans. No matter what measures had to be taken, American morale required men enlisted in the army to put their country first. The dropping of the atomic bomb did what it was supposed to do - demoralize the Japanese and bring them to surrender, and although it is negotiable to say that the Japanese would have surrender with prolonged bombing campaigns, the atomic bomb made sure that Japan surrendered and would stop fighting.
ReplyDeleteThe use of the Atomic bomb to end the war with Japan was justified. The Japanese death toll from Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have been around the same number if America had invaded Japan. However, there are a few reasons for why the atomic bomb was more useful than a direct battle on Japanese land.
ReplyDeleteThe US would have had to have kept its alliance with Russia to threaten Japan enough to surrender had it not used the Atomic bomb, which was unpopular and considered unecessary with a weapon such as the atomic bomb in American hands.
With American invasion of Japan, American lives would have been lost and President Truman needed to think of American lives first before the Japanese.
The Japanese were in favour of suicide before capture, so the atomic bomb killed those who would have died anyways. As well, between the pain of being shot or a quick vaporization by the atomic bomb, as horrible as it may sound, it might have been more humane to use the atomic bomb.
In total war, civillian lives seems to be the only sure way to end the war, and using the atomic bomb was the easiest and safest (for the Americans) way to do so.
----Antony Czeto----
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan by the United States was justifiable. Japan had no intentions of surrendering, and the Americans needed a quick way to end the war. The use of the atomic bomb avoided an invasion of Japan and saved both American and Japanese lives.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese soldiers were ruthless and refused to break down, surrender, or be captured. Ideas like bushido (the way of the warrior) and Yamato-damashii (Japanese spirit) were deeply ingrained in both the soldiers and civilians of Japan. Japanese will and morale had also not been broken by the defeats, bombs, or blockade.
Some critics of the atomic bomb argue that Japan was close to surrendering, but this is simply not true. Intercepted navy and army messages clearly outlined the Japanese plan to fight a final battle against an American invasion. These messages were further supported by the large numbers of aircraft, suicide boats, and other equipment that had been stockpiled. Japan also had over two million soldiers and a large civilian militia prepared to fight to the death.
Although it is true that the Japanese had made contact with the Soviet Union to negotiate surrender, these negotiations were actually a ploy to delay Soviet entry into the war rather than a genuine attempt at ending the war.
The death toll of the atomic bombs was an unfortunate cost to end the war, but there is little outrage over the Tokyo firestorm that ended a similar number of lives. Many who oppose the use of the atomic bomb believe that usage of incendiary bombs should have been continued even though victims were subject to painful death through fire.
Possibly the most important fact regarding the usage of the atomic bomb is that it actually saved both American and Japanese lives. Going by the death toll in Okinawa (20 Japanese dead for every dead American), over 100,000 Americans would have died in an invasion of Japan and at least two million Japanese soldiers and civilians would have died.
It is often ignored that the United States had no intentions of killing Japanese civilians. Leaflets were dropped on major cities clearly outlining the plan to destroy a number of cities and encouraging citizens to evacuate. After the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, more detailed leaflets were dropped on other cities that described the power of the atomic bombs and urged citizens to petition an end to the war before another bomb was used.
The fact is, the use of the atomic bomb by the United States brought World War II to an end, saving at least 100,000 American lives and around 1.8 million Japanese lives. Japan was not going to surrender, and it would have been inhumane to refrain from using the bomb and invade instead.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified. Japanese people were not going to surrender, as most men fought until they were killed or committed suicide. As American troops were advancing on Saipan, they started to see mothers clutching their babies hurling themselves over the cliffs other than being taken prisoner! This was an example of Japanese Total sacrifice. The other enduring image is that of the kamikaze pilots, their planes packed with high explosives, plowing into allied warships. Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final deadly battle in their homeland against an allied invasion.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese code of Bushido, put in place Japanese resistance to the death rather than retreat. The code equipped each Japanese soldier with a strict code: Never be captured, never break down, and never surrender. Each soldier was trained to fight to the death and was expected to die before suffering dishonor. Many Japanese leaders had preferred to take their lives in the painful samurai ritual of 'seppuku' where they stick their sword through themselves. These are all reasons why I believe the bombing was justified, Japanese soldiers were trained to die and if possible taking American lives with them once they knew not of a chance to win.
The atomic bomb on 6 August 1945 over Hiroshima, in only a split second had killed 100,000 people, along with the second bomb on Nagasaki, 3 days later killing another 40,000. These numbers don't even compare to the fact that if the Allies had started a final invasion on Japan, which would have been necessary to winning the war against Japan, during the invasion many hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen would have been killed and wounded, even with the American superiority in number of ships and aircraft.
The initial Japanese attack on American naval base, Pearl Harbor united Americans against Japan and gave them a good and strong reason to fight back and possibly bomb them. Japanese bombers ruined a good chunk of Pearl Harbor, leaving the Americans hurt, but merely pissed off at them.
These are just some of my reasons why I think the atomic bomb strategy on Japan was justified.
The nuclear bombing that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is justifiable. The Japanese armed forces had a code of honour to themselves and their Emperor, to never surrender and to fight on until last man. They were ready for an invasion of the home island, which perhaps would have produced one of the bloodiest battles of the entire war. With the U.S having the advantage of the nuclear bomb, it would only make sense to spare their own men, and to once and for all end this gruelling war, the only way possible, to drop the nuclear bomb. In doing this the U.S. put their superiority to the whole world. It was the best possible way to end the war for the U.S.
ReplyDeleteIt was clear from the start; the Japanese will refuse to surrender. Their honour went to their Emperor and their ancestry, to surrender was seen as dishonour. Nearly every single Japanese soldier was ready to take his life rather than be captured; this was also shown by regular civilians on Saipan, where mothers would jump off cliffs with their babies in order to avoid being captured and held prisoner. This showed the honour even civilians would prove to their Emperor. With the Japanese being stubborn to surrender, and ready to fight until last man it would have made a very bloody end for both sides of the war. It is also known that the Japanese had no clue how much atomic bombs the Americans have. There is a chance that they would have fought if their intelligence would have known that there were only two bombs, which again shows the mentality of the Japanese.
This brings me to the battle that never happened. The battle that would have occurred in Japan is seen by historians to be one of the bloodiest of all time. Millions of U.S. soldiers as well as British and perhaps Soviet soldiers would have battled and died, but much more of the Japanese would have died as well. The Japanese would not be able to fend off the attack that was coming onto them, they would have died defending the island, but in the end it would be a lost cause. Truman saw this as well, and knew that sparing his own men; as well millions of Japanese would only be possible by the surrender. It is important to know that there was numerous surrender options sent to the Japanese before the dropping of the bomb. However surrender was not to be signed and war was to continue. There was no other option to Truman other then drop the nuclear bomb. In doing this it was seen as a very evil action, but it was the only way for both sides to walk away from this long war, and Truman couldn't have passed on this.
The build of the Manhattan Project was about $26 billion in today U.S. dollars. This was a huge project in full secrecy, which was built to one day use and perhaps ends a war. With having the bomb in hand, Truman would make the U.S. into a world super power instantly. To have spent all the money and years on building the bomb, there was no way the U.S. was not going to drop it. It wouldn't make sense to lose all those men on a raid at Japan, when war can be ended with your men not being shot, after all this was a total war, where your men are your number one priority.
Dropping the atomic bomb brought a huge fear on the world. Knowing that at any time a bomb with such power can be dropped was very disturbing. The American’s had no other way to end the war on the Japanese who were ready to die defending the home island. Whether it was a humane thing to do or not, in a total war victory is needed and to provide the victory the U.S used an atom bomb. With all factors included the dropping of the bomb was justifiable.
The dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was justifiable. It was the only way to end the war without invading, and therefore prevent the loss of tens of thousands of lives, as far as the US could see.
ReplyDeleteExtrapolation from the numbers of both American and Japanese casualties in previous battles of the Pacific War reveal an approximation of the extent of the damage that would be caused by an invasion of Japan. In Okinawa, which was almost 1000 miles away from the home islands, 12500 Americans died. Estimates made by General MacArthur as to how many Americans would die in the proposed invasion were too high for the US government, which obviously wanted to look out for the interests of its troops, and even these estimates were on the low side, as MacArthur was in favor of an invasion which he would be leading. The time, resources, and lives that would have to be spent without the bomb were unjustifiable, at least in the American point of view. They saw how the bushido warrior code was ingrained into many of the Japanese soldiers they had been up against, and believed that there would be no surrender without a weapon that would shock the Emperor into realizing that he couldn’t win. Peace negotiations were also out of the question, as the Japanese were asking that the Allies would not occupy their home islands. The Americans couldn’t take this risk, especially with what had happened to start off WWII in Germany, and with what they knew about Japanese unwillingness to surrender. War had to be ended, and the US saw the atomic bomb as an opportunity to do so quickly and with minimal casualties.
The choice to drop the bombs instead of invade was also somewhat considerate of Japanese lives. 250000 Japanese soldiers and civilians died in Okinawa, and this number could only increase with a larger population, elevated desperation, and increased influence of the Emperor and military on the people. From what the US knew about the atomic bomb, it would annihilate the city and surrounding area, simply blowing it off the map. Test runs were all they had to go by, really, and these were done in deserted areas where the effects of radiation were not observed, so they didn’t know how this would affect people who weren’t vaporized.
Other options existed as to how to end the war without an invasion, but none of them were as reliable as the atomic bomb. Despite reports from the armed forces, there was no guarantee that a naval blockade or continuation of the air force’s bombing campaign would have worked. In fact, the statement from the navy may have contained “over-exaggerations of the efficacy of the submarine blockade”, as they were looking to uphold a good reputation and receive commendation for their efforts. The same applies for the air force: their survey which stated that the Japanese would have surrendered from the fire bombing campaign was “designed to secure a large independent air force”, the development of which would have been threatened if they didn’t gain some credit and all the attention was on the atomic bombs. So, the reports weren’t totally trustworthy, and even without these possibly deviations, it’s really impossible to see if the war would have ended without dropping the atom bombs. What we do know was that the US government chose the route that they saw as a sure way of forcing Japan to surrender.
Even if a different alternative was chosen, the other methods really weren’t all that bloodless. The fire-bombing by the air force, for example, was causing huge numbers of casualties, by burning down cities and homes. Data on the total number killed by these raids varies, but centers around 300 000, with many more wounded. This exceeds the lives lost due to the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and was more widespread. The naval blockade wasn’t quite as destructive, but the long term restriction of supplies to Japan was and would undoubtedly cause widespread poverty and starvation, especially considering Japan’s no-surrender philosophy; it would have gone on for a long time, and many people would probably have been forced to cede their few belongings to the Emperor for the survival of more important people. The loss of civilian lives was unavoidable in ending the war, and as far as the Americans could see, the atomic bomb was the best way to do that.
DeleteIn addition, Japan was not planning on surrendering. Over 8000 aircraft (including many kamikazes), hundreds of suicide boats packed with explosives, over 2 million soldiers, and an enormous civilian militia were being mobilized to throw up against US invaders. The plan was to kill so many Americans that they’d crack and give Japan better terms than an unconditional surrender. This on top of the well-represented bushido code of the Japanese military and their unwillingness to give up in previous battles of the Pacific War strongly suggest that a naval blockade or continued fire bombing campaign, or even an invasion of Manchuria by the Russians wouldn’t break their will to fight. The real task of the atomic bomb was to shock and overwhelm the Emperor and the military leaders in Japan with the power the US possessed, so that they’d acknowledge the fact that they couldn’t win. The Americans believed that nothing else could do it, and later exposure of the futility of Japanese attempts at peace negotiations and of Japan’s real intentions confirm that.
Some argue that the US ushered in the nuclear age and started the Cold War by dropping the atomic bombs. The Manhattan Project, however, was triggered by material that other countries were already working on. Naturally, the US wanted to make sure they were able to use it first, so followed suit and came out ahead (which was also natural considering their economic position). If the Americans hadn’t done it, someone would have dropped the bomb (quite literally). In terms of Russian- American relations, Truman and Stalin were having disagreements from the beginning. Both wanted to expand their spheres of influence, and this competition combined with other events would have strained the relations between the two countries anyway. The Cold War would have been different, for sure, but so would everything else if World War II had ended differently, and the nuclear technology would still have been available during the period of time in which the Cold War took place.
To conclude, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan by the US in order to end WWII was justifiable. It was the best way to end the war, with the knowledge that the Americans had at the time, considering the options of a naval blockade, continued air raids, or an invasion, all of which would have exacted huge costs and an unacceptable amount of deaths and injuries. Without the display of nuclear power presented to Japan, it’s possible that unconditional surrender may not have happened, and that was not a risk that the US could take.
The use of the Atomic bomb on Japan by the United Sates justifiable because it was the only we the Americans could Japan to surrender and finally end the war, it was also a logical way for the Americans to not only defeat the Japanese but avoid in an invasion that would cost a lot of their soldiers’ lives.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese were going by the code “Bushido” , they were taught from the beginning to see war as an act that could purify them (the soldiers), the nation, and even the whole world. They were to live by the quote “Do not live shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you”. When some Japanese were taken prisoner, most fought until they died or committed suicide. The Americans knowing they were to go by such a strong code, they knew they would have to do something as drastic and large in scale as an atomic bomb to finally bring the war to an end.
If the Americans chose to invade, a lot more American lives would be taken. For those who are against the Atomic bombs because of the total loss of “innocent civilians” the Americans had to think of their own soldiers’ lives before those who live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese were preparing for a invasion they were training everyone from actual military to school girls, they were not going down without a fight, without the atomic bomb this war could have lasted much longer and much larger in casualties, that is why the use of the atomic bomb on Japan by the United states is justifiable.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan by the United States is justifiable. The atomic bomb gave the Americans an invaluable upper hand. No other country had possession of the atomic bomb at this point and therefore, no one had anything to counter it either. Based on this, it was the surest way to end the war in the Pacific.
ReplyDeleteAfter the immense losses on the many islands (in particular, Okinawa), an invasion of mainland Japan seemed ridiculous. Stimson, who was then the Secretary of War of the U.S., estimated that there would be up to a million American casualties, not to mention a quarter of a million British lives (a number provided by Winston Churchill), had they gone with invading Japanese soil. Using the previous statistics from Okinawa, one dead American generally meant twenty dead Japanese. Therefore, there could have been two million Japanese deaths at least, had an invasion taken place.
There was no guarantee that the Japanese would surrender unconditionally – but the Americans wanted nothing less. The perpetuated idea of the Japanese mindset of honour and never surrendering, rather choosing death, is not baseless. Kamikazes and banzai charges were by no means uncommon and were devastating on both sides. In fact, the Japanese were a leading contributing factor to their many of their own deaths as well as the destruction of their aircrafts. Furthermore, despite the fact that the government might have considered surrendering, the people in the military were not at all considering this as an option. It is written in a manual for Japanese soldiers: “Save the last bullet for yourself.” They lived by the Japanese bushido code - as a warrior, failure was not an option; surrender was not an option. This is also evidenced by the way that many Japanese committed suicide upon hearing of defeat, especially leaders, who performed seppuku on themselves. In the state of total war, civilians were heavily invested and this, too, is shown by the fact that in Saipan, maybe everyday citizens committed suicide in an alarming mass - even mothers with their children in arms jumped off cliffs, so as to avoid the devastation of the Allies' victory.
There were windows of opportunity to surrender - it was just that the Japanese did not particularly like them. For example, the Allies offered the Potsdam Declaration. It is true that the Allies wanted nothing less than unconditional surrender and nothing really guaranteed it quite like the atomic bomb. Another opportunity was after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The Japanese and the Americans likely would not see eye to eye on surrender, if not for the threat of the atomic bomb, and even then, it would be because of much duress - duress that Americans had no choice but to use in order to save their own.
A blockade or a continuation of the bombing campaign are often brought up as alternatives to dropping the atomic bomb on Japan. However, the other options simply were not worth the resources, time or lives needed. Dropping the atomic bomb was also the quickest of the Americans’ options – even more so by the way it detonates before even reaching the ground. To play the morale card, it is often said that the bombing campaign was more effective in taking lives than the atomic bomb. Therefore, one can deduct that at least a few lives (to say the least) were spared by the decision to use the atomic bomb, over that of the bombing campaign. In terms of cutting off the Japanese and waiting for them to starve to death – was that really any more humane?
It was a state of total war and nothing less could have been expected. The name of one of the aircrafts used in the bombing of Hiroshima says it all – Necessary Evil.
When the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was justifiable. Many Japanese said they would never give up, so this was a way to surrender. The Americans were looking out for their country and many Americans just wanted the war to end. This is a war between Japan and America, obviously people are going to die, and it was up to the Americans whether it is American soldiers or Japanese civilians that lived.
ReplyDeleteAmerica gave Japan the opportunity for an unconditional surrender, but he wouldn't take it. The Americans had warned the Japanese about the weapon they had been working on, and that it would cause lots of damage to Japan. But the Japanese would not surrender, some, would fight until they died. Japan didn't want to surrender, so America was justified when dropping the bomb, they knew it was the only way to have Japan surrender. It had to take a lot for Japan to surrender, and even after the first atomic bomb they hadn't surrendered. When people say the bombings weren't fair, or justifiable, they are wrong, when America gave Japan the warning to surrender, they wouldn't. They even warned them that if they didn't surrender they would destroy the Japanese homeland, so it isn't America's fault for having no other choice. They either continued to fight on and have many more soldiers die, or drop a bomb that shocks the world, and shows Japan that when America tells them to surrender, they surrender. There was no other choice to end the war. The Japanese wouldn't surrender and the Americans didn't want to risk more soldiers' lives.
War is war. You don't look out for the opponent – you look out to kill them, to defeat them. It's not America's responsibility to try to kill less Japanese than Americans. Americans are going to look out for themselves – that's how any country would think. Someone from Tokyo wrote about "how many thousands and thousands of helpless men, women, and children died and suffered," but that's what war is. People die, and innocent people are going to get in the way. Innocent people in the Philippines were killed by many Japanese and American soldiers, but there is nothing people can do about it. America was out to do one thing, and that was to get Japan to surrender, and when they didn't do that, they were going to destroy them. America wanted this war over, and if it meant killing thousands of innocent by standards, then so be it. In dropping the bomb the Americans actually saved many people's lives, they saved many Japanese and American soldiers from fighting and killing each other. America wanted to protect their soldiers and sadly that meant to kill Japanese. People say the Americans weren't justified in dropping the atomic bombs, but how else were they going to end the war. They needed something quick and shocking that would scare the Japanese far away.
The use of the atomic bomb to end the Pacific war was justified. America needed something big enough to get Japan to surrender and it took something as big as not one, but two atomic bombs to do so. They wouldn't surrender to America, so America had no other choice. Whether they dropped the atomic bomb or not, people would have died, America had the right to end the war as fast as possible; they didn't want to wait any longer.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war in the Pacific was justifiable, as it did just that – it ended the war. The Japanese were known for fighting to the death rather than surrendering, and for being fully prepared to give their lives up for Emperor Hirohito. To Japan, surrender was out of the question, and not an option.
ReplyDeleteThe Potsdam Conference in July 1945 gave Japan one last chance for total, unconditional surrender (The Potsdam Declaration), and was then further modified, asking for the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces. However, the Japanese were fanatic about winning the war for their homeland, and Emperor Hirohito did not see surrendering his army as an option. So even with the modifications to the Declaration, the bomb was necessary as the Japanese’ determination needed to be broken.
That Emperor Hirohito never spoke outright about Japanese ‘defeat’ or ‘surrender’ upon conceding, only acknowledging that the war ‘did not turn in Japan’s favour’, this indicates the depth of Japanese resistance to the idea of defeat. The Japanese never had any intention of surrendering to the United States willingly, and throughout the war in the Pacific, made it clear that they would rather die than be apprehended by the opposing force. This tactic of never be captured, never break down, and never surrender – the Japanese code of ‘bushido’ – was extremely ingrained into the minds of the Japanese soldiers. The tenacity of these soldiers was evident in their willingness to either fight to the death or commit suicide before they had the chance to be captured. An example of this tenacity was Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, who did not surrender until 1974, after 29 years of continuing to fight in the Philippines. There were almost no survivors of the 30,000 soldier Japanese force in Saipan so deeply rooted was the notion that death was more honourable than surrender. In the last few desperate months of war, Japanese civilians also adopted this strategy. An example of this is in Saipan, where mothers were seen clutching their babies and hurling themselves off cliffs to avoid being taken prisoner. The civilians who populated Japan were trained to fight invaders as well, which also showed that the Japanese did not plan on surrendering easily or willingly.
Further evidence of Japan’s determination is found in the American interception of the Japanese Imperial Army and Naval messages that outlined the plan of the final attack by the Japanese on the Americans, and showed that Japan’s armed forces were ready to fight a “final Armageddon battle”. This was additionally reinforced by the fact that they had built over 8000 aircrafts, many of which were Kamikazes, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, and over two million soldiers trained in the code of “bushido”. The Japanese had believed that the Americans were going to invade via land, and therefore had a plan to hit them with everything they had when they did arrive. The intent was to leave the Americans with many casualties, hopefully break their will, and stop them from trying to force surrender from Japan. If this was unsuccessful, the Japanese planned to continue the fight through guerrilla warfare. In the end, it would take two atomic bombs to break them.
The use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese is further justified by the fact that although the losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were awful, it was not as terrible as the number of lives on the sides of both the Americans and the Japanese as a result of an invasion. When looking at the 250,000 Japanese militia and civilians killed at Okinawa, there were approximately 20 Japanese casualties for every one American. Using these numbers we can calculate that at least two million Japanese would have died in the invasion.
The use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be considered in the context of its time - a context in which the concept of Total War had been adopted by both sides. In this context the distinction between civilians and combatants had virtually collapsed. Moral standards had been redefined by actions by both sides. The bomb ended the war in the Pacific in favour of the Americans, as well as shortened the war and saved thousands of not only American, but Japanese lives. Without the atomic bomb, “hundreds of thousands of civilians in Malaya and Singapore, and millions in Japan itself, would have perished”. The atomic bomb was the fastest and most efficient life-saving decision to be made. That the decision to use atomic warfare in this context was justified in no way lessens the horror it inflicted.
DeleteThe atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable. The warnings given to Japan, the lives ultimately saved and the concept of total war are three major supporting arguments.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to note Japan was given countless opportunities to surrender. The Americans told Japan of the destruction of their land and people that could occur, but the Japanese ignored these warnings. The United States even changed the unconditional surrender of Japan, to the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces. Even after the first atomic bomb (called “Little Boy”) was dropped in Hiroshima, the Japanese refused to surrender. The United States did attempt to avoid the atomic bombings, but the actions of the Japanese showed that they were not going to surrender through traditional methods.
General Douglas MacArthur’s army reported that an invasion of Japan would result in 47,000 deaths; however, the growing belief among historians is a number closer to over 2 million dead. It is safe to assume (as it had happened in Okinawa) that civilians would have been asked to commit suicide as the Americans approached. This concept is known as “bushido”- Japanese should die for the Emperor before surrendering for the enemy. American soldiers witnessed this as women jumped off cliffs with their babies. Men, women, young boys and young girls were trained to fight American soldiers. The war that was expected to last 50 weeks of brutal, person to person combat was ended in less than a week after the atomic bombs. While this sadly cost the lives of many Japanese, and incredible suffering, in the end the atomic bombs saved potentially millions of lives.
The definition of total war is the complete mobilization of fully available resources and population. Both countries were in this mode- Japan showed this by using women and children to fight, and America did this by using the atomic bomb. It is important for the leader of a country to have their own citizens as a priority. President Truman decided to save his own citizens, instead of Japan’s.
The atomic bombs were reasonable because Japan was warned of the coming destruction and ignored it, millions of lives were saved, and both countries were in a state of total war.
The atomic bomb is probably one of the most debatable events of the entire war, with the death tolls and the utter destruction of not one but two cities it is no surprise. This does not mean that it was un justifiable though, quite the opposite, it made the most sense and was completely justified. The Japanese were unwilling to surrender under any circumstances; they were completely devoted not only to Emperor Hirohito but also to the code of Bushido. Both the devotion to the emperor and the tradition of Bushido meant that at the core no Japanese citizen or soldier would ever surrender, surrender making anyone less than human in the eyes of both the emperor and society.
ReplyDeleteThe code of Bushido teaches every person from the time that they are just a child to never surrender, never stop fighting and that suicide was more honorable than being taken a prisoner. If we look at the battle of Iwo Jima we see a perfect example of just what the Japanese would sacrifice for their country. Even though the Japanese were hopelessly outnumbered and out gunned they fought to the death. Almost every single soldier on Iwo Jima would follow the code of Bushido, either fighting until they were dead or committing suicide if they could no longer fight the enemy. This fanatical resistance was seen not just on Iwo Jima, but every single piece of territory that the Japanese held. This fanaticism made it just that much easier for the Americans to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If we look at the firebombing campaigns that the Americans also adopted we see approximately 10,000 dead, burned alive in the firestorms of Tokyo. Similarly we see approximately 10,000 dead from the atomic bomb, now what is more humane to do to a population of civilians, put all 10,000 through the agony of being burned alive, or just vaporize them with an atomic bomb? Yes there are radiation issues such as Leukemia, but still what is better, 10,000 burned alive or 3,000 Leukemia victims?
Now Japan was well aware that they had lost the war against America, but instead of surrender they planned for one final Armageddon battle on the home island of Honshu. This plan required the devotion of the entire population, men, women, children even school girls were taught how to fight off the Americans if they were to land on Honshu. They were trained to fight to the death, which would hopefully make a diplomatic deal with America plausible once the casualties rose too high. We still see this fanatic devotion demonstrated by Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda when it took him until 1974 to finally surrender and lay down his arms. If there were people so fanatical about never surrendering just imagine the death toll if the Americans had gone for a land invasion.
Is it not a leaders job to think about his country and citizens first, and others second? So if the atomic bomb is so unjustified, one cannot believe in total war. As Father John Siemes once said “it seems logical to me that he who supports total war… cannot complain of war against civilians”.
The American’s use of the atomic bomb to end the war of the Pacific was justified. Not only did it effectively serve its main purpose, it also saved many American and Japanese lives in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason that the atomic bomb was dropped was to end the war of the Pacific without the unnecessary sacrificing of American lives. Based on the death toll at Okanawa, 20 Japanese dead for every 1 American, the estimated numbers for an invasion of the home islands was close to 2 million Japanese and 100,000 Americans dead. The U.S. did not want to endanger their soldiers when there was another, safer alternative and the atomic bomb served as just that.
When looking at numbers, it is instrumental to look at the number of civilians killed by the incendiary bombs dropped on Japanese cities earlier in the war of the Pacific. The number of Japanese killed by the Tokyo firestorm is roughly the same number as were killed by the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, the only difference is that those killed in Tokyo were burned alive whereas the those killed in Hiroshima were instantly vaporized.
The lack of surrender by the Japanese was another reason that justified the use of the atomic bomb. From a young age the Japanese are taught to fight until the death and to never surrender. The samurai code of bushido – “way of the warrior” – states that in surrendering you dishonouring not only yourself but also your people, therefore it can be rightly assumed that the Americans would be faced with extreme resistance in the case of an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Since the Japanese had reacted well to terror bombing, it seemed the only thing that would get Hirohito to admit he could not win the final battle would be a highly destructive and spectacularly frightful bomb.
The Americans were also quite convinced that the Japanese would never accept the Potsdam Declaration, thus would never accept unconditional surrender. Japan wanted to open up negotiations to not only ensure their emperor would be safe but also to keep Japan unoccupied by American forces in the case of their surrender. When looking at those demands, the Americans acknowledged that the Japanese really had no intention of surrendering. Behind the U.S.’s back, Japan was busy gathering thousands of aircraft, hundreds of Kamakazi suicide-boats, an army of over two million and a huge civilian militia. The Japanese intended to hit the Americans with everything they had in one final attempt to defeat the U.S. therefore to prevent the deaths of thousands of Americans, the bomb was the necessary solution.
Some people are of the opinion that the dropping of the atomic bomb was unethical because of the extensive damage and the later radiation poisoning. It is not false that the bomb did destroy both Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it did cause disease and further death in months and years to come after the initial explosion, however that was a simple repercussion of a necessary act. The demolition was inevitable. Just like with the area bombing, the cities had been leveled and immense repairs would have to be done. The cancer caused by radiation from the bomb was not something that the Americans could have foreseen. The bomb had been tested on a secluded, uninhabited island where no data about the effects on the human body were collected. Also, the Americans did not completely intend to kill thousands of civilians for just days before they had dropped leaflets on the cities warning the citizens of the danger.
Another common counter argument is that the atomic bomb was not necessary, for the U.S. could have simply continued with the naval blockade and the Japanese would have had no choice but to surrender due to lack of resources. However, there is no concrete evidence that shows the naval blockade was indeed working. Also, in terms of ethics, the naval blockade would have been much slower and more painful for the Japanese because they would be forced into submission through starvation. Therefore, the atomic bomb was, in this case, a much more ethical way to mollify the Japanese resolve and mould them into surrendering.
DeleteWhen piecing together all the evidence that shows the American’s reasons for dropping the atomic bomb, the fact that it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and that it shocked the Japanese into surrendering thus effectively ending the war fit together to make the dropping of the bomb justified. The death of many Japanese civilians was a tragedy but in war, “any leader who puts the lives of enemy civilians ahead of his own people should not be leading.” Truman made an extremely difficult decision, but in the end it was the right one.
The atomic bomb being dropped on the Japanese by the Americans in World War II was justified, for many reasons. The main one being it ended the war in a quick manner, something both sides wanted. Since the war ended faster, it spared an innumerable amount of lives, of both soldiers and civilians. Based on the number of Americans killed in Okinawa and Saipan, it was deduced that if they could lose approximately 80 thousand to 100 000 men, with 300 000 to 320 000 being wounded. Obviously, if they had a way to win the war that would save lives, they should use it. What kind of a leader would put the lives of the enemy’s civilians before his own soldiers? Dropping the atomic bomb was justified and necessary. In fact, it saved the lives of many Japanese soldiers and especially civilians as well.
ReplyDeleteThe Allies were using other techniques to get Japan to surrender, but evidently none of them were working. After the bomb was dropped, many naval officers claimed their blockade was going to cause the Japanese to surrender, but we will never know if that’s true. The Americans could have kept using the classic incendiary bombs, but it would have put more American lives at risked and used more resources. They had already put billions of dollars into developing this new technology, and told people about how they had a “secret weapon.”
But would they have ever surrendered without the bomb? What was known about the Japanese was that they stayed true to their emperor. It was extremely dishonourable for a soldier to be captured or surrender, and those who did were shunned. The concept of bushido or “the way of the warrior” states that they will not surrender. It is a very ancient term that stems from the Zhou Dynasty (1111–256 BCE) and dictates that “samurais” – or in this case Japanese soldiers – will carry themselves with frugality, loyalty, martial arts master and honour unto death. The fact that this ideology has been in their culture for so long may give us some clue why so many of them followed it. Another example of the Japanese determination to win would be the kamikazes. Average men were willing to give up their lives to die a very dramatic death for their emperor and their country. Even when the Japanese knew they could not win, they were determined to take out as many Americans as possible (“Kill 10 American soldiers for ever Japanese soldier.”) It is also important to acknowledge that the civilians also had this mentality, they were trained to fight (i.e. schoolgirls) but also committed suicide (mothers jumping off cliffs in Saipan with their babies.)
Some people argue that the Japanese were trying to negotiate with the Soviets to surrender. While this is probable, they wanted an unconditional surrender, which was not possible seeing as they had caused so much damage throughout this war. It can also be argued that they were just trying to keep the USSR out of the war for as long as possible. Coincidentally, there were in fact actual times where the Japanese could have surrendered had they wanted to: Potsdam Declaration. Unfortunately, Emperor Hirohito saw this as a sign of weakness.
Justifying the atomic bomb may seem like an immoral thing, because the bomb was so devastating. Do people really think the Americans (or anyone, for that matter) knew how grotesque the aftereffects would be? The Manhattan Project had only been tested in New Mexico, where the scientists were able to see the explosion. At this point, no one knew about “nuclear fallout” because it had not been tested on humans. The second justification is simply that war is war. In fact, this was a total war, where no man or woman, soldier, civilian or child was off limits. As horrible as that sounds, it is the truth.
In conclusion, the atomic bomb was justified seeing as it saved so many lives, both American and other. They had no other choice, it was necessary, and it was a (gruesome) success.
The use of the atomic bomb by the Americans to end the war in Japan was absolutely justifiable.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese had no intention of surrendering, as shown in the way they were training their citizens (who were part of a large civilian militia) to fight until the death, and to kill as many American soldiers as they possibly could. As shown in Okinawa, which resulted in 100,000 Japanese casualties and 150,000 civilian Okinawan casualties, the Japanese were given a "quota" as to how many soldiers they could kill before they were allowed to die. They also killed many civilians themselves for not doing what they wanted, which accounted for many of the civilian casualties in this battle. Seeing as this took place on a Japanese Island that was not necessarily the "home island", there is no telling to what lengths the Japanese would have gone through and how many people (including their own) they would have killed before surrendering their biggest island. The Japanese also lived on the honour system of "Bushido", which gave them the mindset that it was better to die than to be captured by the enemy. This was demonstrated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where kamikaze attacks were introduced in a desperate measure by the Japanese to fend off the Americans. Again, seeing as how this was used in an area that was not traditionally Japanese, there is no telling what the Japanese would do to protect their home island. The Japanese were already under a naval blockade, and although many Japanese were already facing starvation, they still did not surrender. It is unreasonable to say that the Americans could have "waited them out", as that would have meant wasting many valuable resources.
If the Americans had invaded Japan, rather than dropping an atomic bomb, there would have been many more American casualties. Truman took this into consideration when he decided to drop the bomb. Although it is debatable how many more or less Japanese lives would have been lost without the bomb, there is no doubt that Truman would not have been a good leader if he thought about Japanese lives more so than he did the lives of his own people. No matter the figures, it is indubitable that more American lives would have been lost had the bomb not been used.
The Americans had also warned the Japanese before about the weapon, even dropping leaflets telling the civilians to evacuate. This made it clear that the Americans had little intentions of actually killing civilians, which is a lot more than what the Japanese could say, seeing as they were teaching people in the hospitals to suicide bomb American tanks. They also did not know the full extent of the effects of the atomic bomb, as they had never before tested it on humans; they had only observed the effects that it had on land during their testing. From what it seems, the Americans seemed to have had more care for civilian lives than the Japanese did, as the Japanese did not have much regards as raped their way through Manchuria and trained Japanese school girls to kill American soldiers.
It would have been even more inhumane had the Americans firebombed the Japanese instead of dropping an atom bomb, as they would have suffered burns, been burnt alive and suffocated to death with this method. Another method, starvation due to the naval blockade, would also have been more inhumane as well, as their death would have been slow and painful, and they would have been living in poverty as supplies grew scarce. There are stories of mothers in Saipan hurling themselves and their babies off of cliffs at the presence of American soldiers; would it really have been more humane to sacrifice American lives, whose mere presence would have brought on civilian deaths such as those?
Although it is stated that the Japanese had claimed to have been negotiating peace with the Russians, it was debunked as an attempt to delay a Soviet entry into the war, not a genuine attempt at peace negotiations. That being said, there was also a Japanese diplomat in the United States the day before Pearl Harbour, trying to to get the Americans to lift the trade sanctions, and that obviously did not work out too well for the Americans. Although these diplomats claimed to have no idea of what the military was planning, what is to say that if these claims were true, it was not the same cases here?
DeleteThe atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, as the Japanese would have never surrendered without a final fight, which would have resulted in thousands of casualties from both the Americans and the Japanese themselves. Some Japanese soldiers, such as Lieutenant Onoda, did not even accept that the war was over until 29 years after the war, which only confirms that they were not willing to surrender/submit into surrendering until they were either victorious or dead. More importantly, however, the bomb brought the war to a much needed end and saved many American - and many potential (as they were just figures) Japanese - lives.
The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. There are a few reasons why it was justified. One of these is that they saved more lives than they ended. If there was an invasion of Japan there would be many more casualties of US and Japanese soldiers as well as much more civilian casualties. Many soldiers on both sides would needlessly die, and civilians caught in the crossfire and hit during a continued US firebombing campaign would also die needlessly. Another reason is that they led to Japan surrendering. Before the bombs fell they were considering surrender, but they settled on continuing the war and were set on having an all out final battle when the US invaded. When the first bomb fell they still would not surrender, yet after the second bomb hit them they finally surrendered. The use of the atomic bombs is justified because of the lowered loss of life and helping end the war.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable. The Japanese were fighting vigorously and were refusing to surrender to the Americans, and were leaving the U.S with few choices, the best being to create the atomic bombs in the Manhattan Project and to end the war without invading, and therefore prevent the loss of tens of thousands of lives; not only American lives, but also in consideration of Japanese lives.
There were other ways to end the war in the Pacific, but none of which were comparable to the efficiency the atomic bombs would be such as the submarine blockade or continuing to invade by air with the fire bombing campaign. Although we cannot be exactly sure that other tactics could have ended the war besides the atomic bombs, we must trust that this choice was sure to cause surrender by the Japanese.
People complain about the fact that the atomic bomb was unethical and unnecessary, killing not only soldiers but also civilians. But this was a case of total war, and as said by John A. Siemes “It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians.” To add, without the use of the atomic bombs, it could have led to thousands more losses to the Americans, as well as Malaya, Singapore, and millions in Japan.
Another point to be put out is that the strategy of bombing. After a large amount of losses in Okinawa, 20 Japanese dead for every American, the death toll if there were to be an invasion of Japanese soil would duplicate many times. Since there was the opportunity to cause Japan to surrender with the chance to risk fewer American lives, they would bravely take on that opening.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable because of the fact that it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives and that it forced Japan into surrender. Each Japanese soldier was trained to fight to death; it was dishonourable to surrender before death. The Americans took the initiative to end this way of thinking and bring an end to the war of the pacific which was the only reliable way to end the war at the time. Although it was horrid, it ended up saving many lives in the long run.
Of course the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified. Area bombing was not working ant an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have been far too costly of American lives for them to undertake such a thing. If they had had the atomic bomb at their disposal and not used it, and instead invaded, that would have been unjustifiable; because, it would have cost more lives in the end, American and Japanese, and Japan’s culture, government, and way of life would have been destroyed at the hands of the invading and occupying American forces.
ReplyDeleteAn invasion, one could equate to a slow dull irritation which would eventually subdue the victim. But the atomic bomb is more like a sharp, relatively short-lived, but agonizing pain and the Japanese would respond much better to the agonizing pain that no the slow dull defeat to the last man. The atomic bomb should be considered as a gift to the Japanese, because it made them realize that they had lost and that to fight to the last man is pointless and self-destructive.
Also, it proved the might of the atomic bomb and it has never since been used in anger towards any entity due to the concept of mutual annihilation; and this may be considered as a gift to the whole world.
The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. The Japanese were given multiple chances to surrender, including the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, which asked for unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces. However, the Japanese saw surrendering as an impossible option. Japanese soldiers and civilians had been ingrained with the idea of “bushido,” which stressed loyalty and obedience, and more importantly the value of honour above life. The Japanese left the U.S. with very few choices about how to resolve the situation. In the end, the atomic bomb proved to be the most effective solution, as it killed less people than if the Americans had chosen to invade, and made the war end faster. It prevented the death of tens of thousands of people, for both Americans and Japanese, and both soldiers and civilians. If the Americans had decided against using the bomb, a lot more people would have been killed through unnecessary crossfire and been needlessly sacrificed. The U.S. did not want to endanger their soldiers, and the atomic bomb proved to be a safer alternative. As inhumane an atomic bomb may sound, it was in general a much easier and efficient solution to end the war.
ReplyDeleteThe atomic bombing of Japan by the USA was justifiable to end the war in the Pacific and force surrender. The Japanese were under a strict no surrender code. Everyone from the army to school children were trained to attack the americans, protect their emporer and never surrender. To surrender was considered dishonorable and there would be a price to pay if you surrendered. Within the army soldiers who didn't follow the strict standards and codes were beaten. "Bushido" which meant to fight till death was a way of living for not only the army but all Japanese people. The army even punished people outside their forces as well. Soldiers would kill civilians that were not willing to give up food and shelter for the war effort. It got to a point near the end of the Pacific War where civilians began taking their own lives to avoid capture and disgrace. As a nation the Japanese gave were to give everything they had to war and had trained themselves to die at any moment.
ReplyDeleteThe atomic bomb was also justifiable to force a surrender because Japan as a nation was not 100% no surrender. The atomic bombs were needed to bring the Japanese all under the ideal of surrendering. The government was willing to surrender but the army and nation would not. They made it out that they wanted to save their emporer but when the americans modified the terms to protect the emporer the offer was still refused. After the modification was made the Japanese government actually changed their position and didn't want a surrender. It became clear that no american occupation in Japan was more important. The use of the atomic bombs put the well being of the Japanese people of the importance of their land.
Another reason the atomic bombs were necessary were to save massive amounts of american and japanese lives. Truman, the american president at the time, didn't want any more bloody massacres to happen. If the americans were to invade Japan the losses in life would be great for both sides, people would needlessly suffer and die. It also saved many British lives as they were planned to come join the efforts in the Pacific after the war in Europe ended. The Japanese knew they could not win the war as well. Their goal was to inflict as many casualities in their opposition as possible. Japan wanted to fight a final Armageddon in which they hoped would break the American morale and sway the negotiations in the Japanese favor. In the end the bombing saved lives on both sides as it has been estimated that 20 japanese were killed for every one american. The saving of lives in war can not be underestimated making the use of atomic bombs to end the war justifiable.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan was successful in achieving its goals. Although immoral, it did end the war. The Japanese living in or near the areas of the target of the bomb, were warned to evacuate. Almost half the population that was warned had made their way out.
ReplyDeleteHiroshima was of industrial and military significance. Military camps were located nearby such as the Headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters. Hiroshima was also a logistics base and communications center.
Japan was not going to surrender…
The Japanese followed a strict code, Bushido, which directed: “Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you.” Still 29 years after the war ended, Lietuenant Hiroo Onoda continued fighting on the Philippine island of Lubang. 1974 Lieutenant Onoda was forced to put down his arms. Another Japanese soldier, Yokoi, still carried his army rifle with him even though he knew the war was over. When the police approached him, he said he was too afraid to give himself up. Also, Kamikaze pilots went on suicide missions and drove their explosive-packed planes into the Allies ships.
Japanese prisoners returning from the previous war with Russia had been treated as social outcasts. They were shamed on for surrendering rather than taking their own lives. Not only did the army believe in death over surrender, civilians did too. Civilians were encouraged to suicide. American troops recall women jumping off cliffs with their children when they advanced into Saipan. Soldiers and civilians were committed to the rule of Bushido.
Japanese historians found out the plans of the Japanese for the summer of 1945. They had carried over 8000 aircraft, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, 2 million regular soldiers, and a civilian’s militia. At the Potsdam conference the Americans negotiated the conditions of the Japanese surrender. They would only ask for an unconditional surrender of the armed forces. This meant the Emperor would not have to surrender. Still, the Japanese rejected the declaration.
If the atomic bomb had not been dropped, the war would continue taking hundreds of thousands of lives. More lives would be lost than those that were lost due to the atomic bomb…
The Japanese were looting, raping, burning, and killing Chinese. Prostitution had been enforced in Korea; tens of thousands of young teens were used by the Imperial Army. Americans set up a blockade that limited Japans access to food and resources, thus starving many people. Also, the invasion of Japan would be initiated; therefore, killing hundreds of thousands of lives on both the Japanese and Allied side. Numbers were calculated based on averaged from the invasion of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. It is estimated that 2 million Japanese alone would die if an invasion deemed necessary.
The former Prime Minister of Singapore stated: “Hundreds of thousands of civilians in Malaya and Singapore, and millions in Japan itself, would have perished.” If the war continued, these horrific actions would continue to take place. Many Japanese would also starve as the army was taking more than their portion of food to have enough strength when fighting the war.
People argue that the invasion of Manchuria alone by the Soviets would make Japan surrender; however, if the defeats at land and sea, blockades, and firestorms did not make Japan surrender, why would another land invasion cause them to? The Japanese had expected the Soviets invasion for months and they were prepared to fight against it.
DeleteAlso, people believe that the Americans dropped the atomic bomb to threaten the Soviets from spreading communism around the world. If this was true, the Americans would have dropped the bomb somewhere else so that the Soviets could see the effects of the bomb without having to take so many lives.
The atomic bomb ended the war, and that fact alone is enough to justify its use. Although Hiroshima was of military and industrial significance, “total war cannot complain of war against civilians.”
ReplyDeleteThe use of dropping the atomic bomb on the Japan by the U.S in order to end the war in the Pacific is justifiable based solely one 3 key reasons - A speedy end to the war, to save a large amount of money, and to save millions of lives. For these reasons the dropping of the atomic bomb is reasonable and understandable.
The Japanese people thought it was dishonorable to surrender and they knew they would not go down without a fight. The Japanese were loyal to their emperor, Emperor Hirohito. They found it honorable dying for their emperor, as well as their country. The Japanese were passionate and courageous when they battled and would have most likely not have surrendered without the Americans use of the atomic bomb. The Japanese were tenacious and determined in winning the battle in the Pacific without surrendering and they would give everything they had in order to win, even if it meant battling until death. The Americans thought the use of the atomic bomb would bring the Japanese to their knees and surrender because the Americans knew that the Japanese would not surrender and give up that easily. Japan had no intentions on surrendering. “it had husbanded over 8,000 aircraft, many of them kamikazes, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, and over two million well equipped regular soldiers, backed by a huge citizen’s militia. When the Americans landed, The Japanese intended to hit them with everything they had.” Americans believed that by dropping the atomic bomb on Japan then it “would secure the speedy and unconditional surrender of Japan” by taking away their will to carry on, by taking away their courage, by executing their determination and passion. Ultimately, the dropping of the atomic bomb would help contribute in ending the battle in the Pacific and force Japan into surrender. Furthermore, the Americans wanted to end the war and use the atomic bomb in order to impress the Soviets, the American leaders considered the dropping of the bomb an advantage in negations with the Soviets and then would ultimately lead to a hardening of the American position at Potsdam.
“How many thousands of helpless men, women and children would have needlessly died and suffer…?” This quote illustrates the sacrifice of multiple innocent civilians and soldiers that would take place if the dropping of the atomic bomb did not take place. It makes a lot more sense taking the lives of a few Japanese rather than taking even more lives whether it is American lives of Japanese lives. Yes, the death poll due to the atomic bomb was upsetting; however, it was necessary before more and more of innocent children, women, men, and soldiers would die. The Americans knew they were too weak and would not be able to fight in one and last final ‘all or nothing’ battle between Japan and America, so in order to save lives, the decided to spend money on creating the atomic bomb and finally deciding to drop in on Japan. The dropping of the atomic bomb also meant saving a large portion of money. Hopefully by dropping the atomic bomb the Japanese would immediately surrender down the road and help end the Battle in the Pacific. This would save money on food, machines, war materials, and equipment. The money saved could be spent on other necessities else where.
ReplyDeleteAmerican Politicians would have gladly negotiated an end to war more generous than unconditional surrender with the Japanese but the Japanese determined to fight in a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion, however, the American president believed the American soldiers would not last because they were too brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. Even after the first bombing the Japanese still did not desire to surrender. The Allies even gave them a chance to re-evaluate their decision but still, Japan did not want to surrender even after they knew what the outcome was. Japan knew the damage it caused to many properties, the number of people killed or injured, and the effect it had on so many Japanese people. Sadly, the Japanese did not choose to stand down to the Allies and the second bombing had to occur. It was not until after the second dropping of the atomic bomb that the Japanese finally surrendered.
Altogether, dropping the atomic bomb in order to stop the battle in the Pacific against the Japanese is justifiable because it was to secure the speedy and unconditional surrender of Japan. The bomb was used so it could lower Japan’s confidence with their will to never surrender and put an end to their determination, passion, and courage. The Japanese did have a warning of the second bombing and a chance to surrender but chose not to accept it. The atomic bomb was necessary to put an end to the war. It is better losing a smaller amount of people rather than losing a larger amount of civilians and soldiers on both sides. It saved the Americans a large amount of money that they could spend on other important things, and helped end the battle a lot faster. All is fair in love and war.
ReplyDeleteThe use of the atomic bomb on Japan by the united states to end the war in the pacific can be justified. The atomic bombs brought the war to an end more quickly if they hadn’t dropped the bomb and it saved more lives in the long run, if the Americans and Japanese were to keep fighting more Americans lives would have been lost if the war had continued. the Japanese had no intentions of surrendering in the first place even after the first atomic bomb had been dropped Japanese soldiers were ruthless and dedicated to the war and refused to surrender and so the second atomic bomb eventually made the Japanese surrender
ReplyDeleteThe use of the atomic bomb was justified as it was horrid yes, but it saved many american and japanese lives. The fighting at Okinawa was terrible and you can only think of how much worse it would be if the Japanese home islands were invaded. Yes the Russians in Manchuria probably made the Japanese go "well we're kinda screwed" but I think the threat of continuous atomic bombs is what made then surrender.
ReplyDeleteOn August 6th 1945 a nuclear uranium bomb “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima and on August 9th a nuclear plutonium bomb “Fat man” was dropped on Nagasaki. The Japanese surrendered 5 days later on August 14th. The president of the U.S at the time: Truman, important policy makers, and the military alike almost unanimously agreed to the drop these nuclear bombs. But was this decisions right? This is a highly debatable question, and much guilt has been given to the “victims” of these bombings. Based on the evidence that the Japanese were willing to sacrifice themselves for their country, the Soviet role was minimal, that no other alternative to invasion was present, and mainly for the reason that it would have cost more Japanese and American deaths.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear from many forms of evidence that an invasion of Japan would have been more costly than the bomb. From the nuclear bombs of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki the death toll from the time of the event totalled about 140,000. An invasion would have been much more costly for the reasons that: an invasion requires much more troops then 140,000 for American offensive and Japanese defensive, that the Japanese were planning a fierce enough resistance to force a negotiated settlement with the “weak willed” Americans, but also for the reason that the Japanese were almost unwilling to surrender. In Japan to surrender was socially dishonourable, and dying for one’s country and emperor was an honour. The Japanese had a code of ethics called the ‘bushido’ which was a code of the Samurai (the Japanese medieval knight). Surrender in this code of ethics was dishonourable; one would kill himself and fight to the death before having the dishonour of being a prisoner. The Japanese would be in social exile if they came home after surrender. An example of this is that in after the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905 the returning prisoners were treated as social outcasts. An extreme example of the determination of the Japanese to never surrender is Lieutenant Onoda. Lieutenant Onoda survived in the jungle for 29 years after the war finished, and couldn’t be flushed out militarily or told by Humanitarians that told him the war was over. He had never received formal orders to surrender so he followed the code of honour of the Japanese people and soldiers. On the Philippine island of Lubang, Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda finally layed down arms on March 9, 1974. The Japanese will to never surrender would have cost huge casualties for the Americans and Japanese when invading the homelands. The Japanese would be most determined to sacrifice themselves when protecting their homelands. The best example of self-sacrifice is in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Iwo Jima and Okinawa are considered Japanese territory, but were exterior islands from the home islands. The Japanese knew full well before the American invasion of Iwo Jima and Okinawa that they would never be able to defend the islands, but were only able to cost the Americans as many casualties as possible and to create time to prepare Honshu for American invasion. In Okinawa there were about 49,000 American casualties and about 250,000 Japanese military and civilian deaths. These high casualties for not a great purpose were just for the outer islands. For the home islands the Japanese prepared for thousands of kamikazes, trained hundreds as suicide bombers, created a civilian militia and trained many civilians in the country.
I this the Use of the Atomic bomb on japan by the U.S to end the was in the pacific was justified because By the end of the war, most of Japan's major cities had been destroyed by U.S. air attacks and the Americans were looking for a city in japan that was still standing The size and the shape of the city was suited to the destructive power of the American bomb called “little boy” . Because Hiroshima had not been bombed, the effects of the “little boy” would be easy. The bomb called “fat man” was droped on the city Nagasaki and they were dropped 2 days apart from each other. The Americans wanted to wipe out as many Japanese to cause them to surrender the war with out the Americans losing too many men. About 90,000 people were killed immediately; another 40,000 were injured, many of whom died in protracted agony from radiation sickness. Three days later, a second atomic strike on the city of Nagasaki killed some 37,000 people and injured another 43,000. Together the two bombs eventually killed an estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians. The Americans got help in the war against the Japanese when the Soviets went in and attacked Manchuria. At this point the Japanese still didn’t surrender until 5 days after the second bombing. Yes the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified because despite the amount of Japanese civilian casualties this move had to bo made for the Japanese USA rivalry to end. The Americans ended the war with 2 quick moves without killing very many of its own men.
ReplyDeleteI think that in times of total war, it was justified to throw the atomic bomb. Americans already spent money on it and it worked so why not use it to their advantage? There would be no point in knowing you created something that can save your own men’s lives and not using it. Secondly, there are studies that are done that were based on the battles in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The studies showed for every American soldier that was killed, 20 Japanese soldiers died. Hence the estimate for casualties in Japan would be close to 2 million. There were also lots of civilians that committed suicide during the battles or were killed in crossfires. Many Japanese soldiers were killing their own people because they refused to give them food. There were other alternatives to invading Japan, such as continuing the bombing of the cities. However, this method would have also have made the casualties high on both sides. In addition, I truly believe that the Japanese would not have surrendered any other way. The infamous Bushido code taught soldiers to see war as an act that could purify themselves, the nation and the whole world. “Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die and leave no ignominious crime behind you.” This is an accurate quote to demonstrate the mentality of many soldiers. The fact that it was such an overwhelming surprise is what finally got the Japanese to surrender.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima by the US was justified. The US had closed in on Japan at that point and was faced with invading the mainland of Japan. The Americans were very hesitant about going through with this, because from what they had faced in Okinawa, it was going to be a very long and costly battle. If the Americans were to invade Japan, there would be a HUGE loss of life on both sides due to the resilience and willingness to die for their country of the Japanese.
ReplyDeleteThe Americans wanted to find another way of ending the war in the quickest way possible and without directly invading. The atomic bomb was the best idea they would think of. By dropping the bomb, they actually killed less people than they estimated would be if they invaded. By using the bomb, they may have killed many Japanese people, but it is less people than what would have been if the US troops had invaded.
Yes, the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified. The Japanese were not planning to surrender and give up anytime soon and started to fight harder with different tactics as the Americans started fighting on their turf. The US The use of the Japanese kamikazes was damaging the American fleet and they had to bring the war to a quick end with the least amount of casualties.
ReplyDeleteThe atomic bombs dropped on Japan killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki. 22,000 Japanese soldiers alone died at the battle of Iwo Jima and that was the population they started off with. 216 japanese surrendered while the rest died in combat. That shows that the Japanese would not have given up anytime soon and if the fighting was on the Japanese mainland, they would not have given up leading to a lot more deaths. The Japanese found more honor in suicide then to surrender therefore Japan would not have given up. They didn’t even give up when the saw the first effects of the first bomb on Hiroshima.
The dropping of the atamic bomb also frightened other countries making them intimidating and other countries will not mess with them anymore.
The fact that they were under total war and the bombing of allied cities and German cities was already happening, the atomic bomb was just another stage of bombing. It was just a bigger bomb that ended up winning the war with the help of the Russians.
The atomic bomb used on Japan was not justified. I believe this because American air force supremacy was already close to defeating japan, so it was not necessary. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were civilian cities. Most of the people affected by the bomb were civilians and not military member. It is trues that lives were saved, but those lives were only American and it is not fair to think that American lives are more important, when the fact is that we are all people. Also, Japan had already been seen as defeated with no navy, no air force, armies losing in China, American bomber in the sky, and the Soviet Union declaring war on them. Japan was at a loss over American superiority over their skies and sea, Japan couldn’t even shoot down unguarded bomber which carried the atomic bomb. This evidence shows that without the atomic bomb, japan was already close to defeat. The blockade was working and japan had lost resources to fuel their people and fuel their industry. Killing innocent people should not be justified especially for military purpose. Finally, the many after affects the Japanese civilians was unbearable. No amount of suffering should be placed on people because of the need for victory in the war especially since it is only estimated that many would be saved. As you can see, for many reason the use of the atomic bomb was in no way justifiable.
ReplyDeleteI believe the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified. The Japanese were taught to fight to the very last man and never give themselves up for defeat so they were a very difficult opponent whose beliefs and loyalty would not be compromised. The Japanese would not consider surrender and the Americans wanted an end to the war that they felt had been going on too long and was becoming increasingly expensive. The Americans felt that the only option to the bomb was an invasion of Japan, which would cause extensive allied and Japanese casualties as well as an unwanted extension to the war. The Americans and their allies had also issued the Potsdam Declaration, an ultimatum for Japan to surrender or face destruction. Japan chose to ignore this ultimatum and the allies felt they were running out of options to deal with Japan and the expansion of their troops.
ReplyDeleteThe main argument against the dropping of the atomic bomb was the loss of Japanese life. However, there is evidence that dropping the atomic bomb probably saved many future lives. Unfortunately, a world war is bloody and unfair and the loss of life is tragically inevitable.
The use if the atomic bomb on Japan by the US to end the war in the Pacific was definitely justifiable. Both sides of the war did not want this war to continue on much longer, and this gave the Americans the opportunity to end the war in the pacific once and for all.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, there is no doubt the use of the atomic bomb saved lives. It clearly saved American lives by avoiding invasion, but based on the casualties from Okinawa, it also saved approximately 2 million Japanese lives as well. Compared to the 200,000 who died, that is a massive difference.
The use of the atomic bomb was also justifiable because the Japanese were by no means willing to surrender. The Japanese soldiers lived by the “Bushido” code, which meant they would fight to their death, and would rather kill themselves than surrender. Even some civilians lived this way, with the example of mothers holding their children and jumping off cliffs at Okinawa. Some may say that the Japanese were willing to surrender before the bomb was dropped, but this is untrue. The Americans gave the Japanese an opportunity to surrender at the Potsdam conference, prior to dropping the bomb, but the Japanese refused. The army was not going to give up. However, Japan was looking for loopholes, and the atomic bomb gave them that excuse to surrender, again justifying it.
Another argument used against the justification of the atomic bomb is that other strategies, such as a blockade or invasion, would have worked. Yes, it is possible that these strategies would have worked, but they would have drawn out the war even longer and many more casualties would have resulted. By using the atomic bomb, the Americans took the Japanese by surprise and were able to end the war very quickly.
When thinking of the issue of morality, it is hard to say where to draw the line. However, the other possible tactics the Allies could have used included firestorms and starvation from blocking off Japan’s supplies. These would have also resulted in excruciatingly painful deaths, and there would have been many more deaths this way as well. One must also consider that this was a time of total war, where citizens were considered targets. The Americans were mostly concerned about the lives of their own people, which is completely understandable. If the president had been worrying over Japan’s deaths, he would not have been a true leader of his country.
Overall, the atomic bomb ended the war quicker, less people perished, resulted in Allied victory; therefore, it was completely justified.
Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan by the US was justified as it brought World War II to an end. The bomb was designed to undermine the will of the Japanese to continue to fight. Not only was the bomb highly destructive, its visual effect would be tremendous (Unit XXIV. The Atom Bomb). The unwillingness of the Japanese to surrender is proven by their samurai code of ethics known as “bushido”. They would rather die than dishonour their lord. It is arguable that the Japanese may have negotiated to end the war but the Allies wanted unconditional surrender of the Japanese. American military also wanted to avoid another bloody campaign. The atomic bomb was a solution to end the war swiftly. The use of the atomic bomb brought a quick end to World War II, without the loss of more Allied troops.
ReplyDeleteThe usage of the atomic bomb by the Allies on Japan was justified. There are a number of reasons for this. The atomic bomb was a strictly need-to-do basis, just like the bombing of German civilian areas in Europe. There was no specific grudge or personal revenge against the Japanese civilians killed in the atomic bomb, but it was simply what the Allies viewed necessary to end the war in the Pacific with enemies that seemed like they would never give up.
ReplyDeleteThe Americans had seen much bloodshed at the war grounds of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese were determined beyond belief. They knew that they could not win in Iwo Jima or in Okinawa, but they were determined to at least delay the advance of the Americans in exchange for their lives. This determination was reflected in the Japanese kamikaze or the mindset of the Japanese civilians in the islands as well. The Americans felt that the Japanese would never surrender if such a dragged-out war was to continue, and they felt as though deploying the atomic bomb was the only feasible solution to force the Japanese to surrender without undergoing another lot of countless casualties.
Some may argue that by deploying the atomic bomb to save their troops, the Americans were advertently ranking the American soldiers’ lives above the ones of Japanese civilians. The decision to deploy the atomic bomb was made during wartime. To put it bluntly, the Japanese, whether civilian or not, were the enemies; the enemies that just refused to give up, that inflicted countless casualties on the side of the Americans. The Americans cannot be blamed for choosing the method of deploying the atomic bombs- this way, much less lives would be killed in comparison to an invasion of the Japan homelands, where the determined Japanese would undoubtedly fight and die rather than surrender.
The Americans had also warned the Japanese civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, time and time again, that the atomic bombs would be on their way soon. It was the Japanese civilians that chose to ignore the warnings. Compared to the continuous incendiary bombings of Tokyo, one may even argue that the atomic bombs were actually fairer as the Japanese were given many warning prior to the actual attack.
Two million soldiers with an enormous Japanese civilian militia were what the Americans would have to face should they have chosen the route of invasion. As long as the Japanese even held an inkling of hope that they stood a chance against the Allies, they would continue fighting. The atomic bomb stopped this by showcasing the technological superiority the Americans had, what they could accomplish with a few deployments. The atomic bomb managed to capture the rallying Japanese off guard, and demoralize them. While the atomic bombs did cause many civilian deaths- which were preventable, as the Americans had warned them again and again- it was a sure-fire way to prevent even more casualties on both sides from happening if an approach such as an invasion had taken place. Because of these reasons, the American bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was not only justifiable, but needed, to end the war without many more losses.
The use of the atomic bomb on Japan to end the war was definitely justified. Japan had little interest in surrendering and because of the bomb the Americans did not have to invade Japan sparing their life’s and Japanese as well. The Japanese were trained to never surrender and to kill as many Americans as they possibly could. There is an argument that the Japanese were close to surrendering but that is a false statement because the Americans intercepted messages between the Japanese plans to fight a final battle against the Americans if they invaded which wasn’t the case. There is also a case that if the Americans invaded the Japanese the death toll would have been approximately the same as Okinawa which was 20 Japanese deaths to the American 1 which would be approximately 2,000,000 Japanese soldiers and civilians dead for the Americans 200,000. From these numbers the atomic bomb can be seen as saving life’s because approximately only 140,000 from both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were killed instantly. The bomb was the best way to end the war because it was the safest way to insure that less Americans and Japanese would be killed compared to an invasion and it brought the Japanese to surrender.
ReplyDeleteThe use of the atomic bomb on japan by the as was justified. ‘There were those who considered that the atomic bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas… I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt a position that rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives…’
ReplyDeleteWinston Churchill
Yes the bombing sucked and it was cruel but then again this was a war being fought, they are no rules, no limits. The point of the war is to get what you want or win. And for some people there are no limitations in how far you will go. They were in total war and they had access to use something so powerful in helping them succeed so why not use it. The Japanese said themselves that they would never quit and always put 100% in fighting. They felt as though surrendering would be dishonorable This would make it extremely difficult for the war to end if the us hadn’t used the atomic bomb. The amount of lives that could have been taken is outrageously large, and although many lives were taken when the bomb was dropped it saved a much larger amount by ending the war. The Japanese succeeding in completing what it was supposed to accomplish demoralize the Japanese and get them to surrender.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified by means to end the war. The Japanese and the Americans were suffering many casualties and the Japanese were starting to go Kamikaze on the Americans. The Japanese were not going to let up any time soon, they would rather die than surrender. As dying was more honourable than surrendering. The Americans had won the race to nuclear arms, and had the right to use the bombs they had created. It was an act to end the war, and had saved lives on both sides. The alternate to the Americans would be to conduct an invasion on Japan, but with the suicidal side of Japanese soldiers, both sides would have lost many men. The Americans had also set a scale for nuclear warfare, and the money they had spent on the bombs made its use reasonable. It would also leave the world in a state of fear to use the bombs in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe use of the Atomic Bomb by the American's was justified. It was said by the Japanese at the beginning that they would rather die than surrender. The American's knew that if they were to invade Japan with troops, it would not end well. There would be a lot of blood and a lot of not only American lives, but Japanese as well. By dropping the bomb, the war was ended much quicker than if it was fought in battle. There was little to no protest to the drop of the bomb so, Truman never doubted the fact of the bomb being dropped.
ReplyDeleteThe American's had to think about their own troops and the wellfair of their people. Dropping the bomb on Japan was the only way to save lives and end the war. The American's accomplished what they set out to do by dropping the bomb; Japan surrendered.
Yes the use of the atomic bomb was justifiable. The Japanese were willing to fight to the death for their emperor and the Americans saw the bomb as a way to not only end the war, but to save their own soldiers lives. The casualties in the previous battles int he pacific had been outrageously high, and they knew that the number would only be higher once they actually launched an attack on the main land. The Japanese were not making fair negotiation offers, and basically wanted to be let off easy, have the guarantee of their emperors safety, and basically be let off easy without having to truly admit defeat. The things they were asking would have not been fair considering how much damage they did to the allies, and how much casualties had happened through the many battles. Yes the atomic bomb caused a very high amount of civilian casualties, but Americans must count the lives of their own soldiers at a higher degree one could say. The dropping of the atomic bomb was what made the emperor finally realize the full power of the Americans, and made him give up on the war. Only with the emperor coming to that realization would the Japanese had surrendered. The fire bombings of Tokyo did not work, the first dropping of the atomic bomb did not work, it really took the second bomb to finally make the emperor realize that they were not going to win. From statistics gathered from the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it is also estimated that the Americans would've lost around 1 million men, and without it, it also would have made it possible for the USSR to take over Manchuria, all of Korea, and northern provinces, so yes. The dropping of the atomic bombs is justifiable.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Americans use of the atomic bomb on japan was indeed justifiable. I agree with what Winston Churchill said “it brought japan to her knees and ended the horrible war” I believe that if the war had gone on any longer more people would have died than how many people the bomb had killed. I think in the end the bomb saved lives as oppose to lives being lost. People have argued that the harshness of the bomb was unnecessary, but I say its just warfare. The whole point of this bomb was to weaken the will of the Japanese people to continue in the war. The atom bomb was an ideal terror weapon and extremely destructive. There were talks about the Japanese were apparently in the works of surrendering anyways, but I’m sure the Japanese felt that surrendering would be a dishonorable way to lose the war rather then just dying; so the bomb was a quick fix to get things done. The shock value of the bomb forced the Japanese to surrender, which is a great thing in my eyes. The atomic bomb was most definitely extreme, but it was the only way to get the Japanese to surrender and to put an end to the war. Although the dropping of this bomb is god awful, the Americans had avoided the need for an invasion of japan.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Japan was not justified. General MacArthur said that the number of American lives that could be lost in an invasion would be 47,000 compared to 150,000 Japanese citizens that were killed with the dropping of the atomic bombs. 150,000 were killed in the droppings, on top of that, there were many citizens who would die (A painful death) as an after effect of the Atomic Bomb, radiation. The Japanese people were prepared to fight to the death for Emperor Hirohito, Though Japan was already considering surrendering. If the Russia were to join in the invasion, Japan would not be able succeed. Japanese forces would not be able to handle The US and Russian forces. The Home Islands were beginning to starve, and they were to surrender, perhaps forcefully and maybe sometime soon. The damage upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki was truly morbid; the US even realized it when they landed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The conditions of the people were terrible. People saw burnt people coughing up and urinating blood with their hair falling out in clumps and soon to be dead.
ReplyDeleteThis are the reason I believe that the use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan was not Justifiable. They were considering to surrender, and most likely would, if Russia were to join in on the invasion. The use of the Atomic bomb was, in a sense, overkill.
--Jay Tandel
It seems indubitable that the use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan by America was justified. It is almost certain that without it the Japanese would not have easily agreed to an unconditional surrender, and by using it countless American, as well as Japanese, lives would be saved.
ReplyDeleteThere were many indications during the war that led America to believe that Japan was not going to easily agree to an unconditional surrender. It was made obvious during the negotiations between Japan and the U.S.A. that the only way that the two countries would reach diplomatic peace was if America were to agree to numerous unreasonable demands, such as no allied occupation of Japan. Thus the only remaining action that America could take to end the war in the Pacific was to force Japan to surrender. One strategy that America used to accomplish this was to carry out a bombing campaign on Japan. During these raids one major target was Tokyo, where around 100,000 people died as a result of firebombing; this number is close to that of those killed in the Hiroshima bombing. These numbers show that though the atomic bombs did kill many people, this was not the first time that Japan had suffered an enormous loss due to an American bombing and still did not surrender as a result. More evidence of the Japanese doggedness to not surrender is obvious in their very nature during the war. The Japanese soldiers were steadfast and had a fanatical devotion towards their emperor. The Samurai practice of "bushido" encouraged the Japanese soldiers to die before even considering surrendering to the enemy. This belief was mirrored in many civilians of Japan as well as seen throughout the Pacific campaign. Countless Japanese civilians killed themselves and their entire families in the presence of American forces just to ensure that they would not be captured, even though the Americans had no policies to harm Japanese civilians. This evidence leads to the next point concerning the justification of the use of the Atomic Bomb. Though the two nuclear weapons claimed upwards of 150, 000 lives this is a small number when compared to the number of American and Japanese lives that would be lost if there was an invasion of the Japanese home island. As shown in previous battles such as Okinawa, the Japanese were fully prepared to fight to the death and American casualties would be exceedingly high.
In conclusion sceptics of the Atomic Bomb need to remember that Japan was at total war, and the definition of total war is “A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants”. This clearly shows that the Japanese people were as much of a justifiable target as the Japanese military, and any possible action that America could take to stop Japan needed to be taken.
The use of the the atomic on Japan by the U.S. to end the end was justifiable. The atomic bomb was ultimately the lesser of the two evils when the amount of lives that were saved compared to the amount of lives that were lost is considered.
ReplyDeleteThe Japanese were prepared to fight to the death without hesitation. They were even willing to murder their own people let along enemy soldiers. Using the atomic bomb saved approximately 10 times more lives than if it had not been used. The U.S. governement’s plan b of a land invasion had become a lot more costly and a lot dangerous courtesy of the Japanese loyalty to their emperor. Due to the solid fact that the Japanese were ready and willing to die fighting, the only factor that would lead to a U.S. victory was that of shock. The shock value of the atomic bomb rocked the Japanese and was a tremenduous reason as to why they, in the end of it all, surrendered.
Other reports suggesting that Japan was, in fact, preparing to surrender before the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man and Hiroshima and Nagashaki are false. These claims can be falsified by the knowledge of the amount of aircrafts , weapons, boats that had been collected and stockpiled for quite a while in preparation for a land invasion. Eight thousand aircrafts, hundreds of suicide boats, and millions of soldiers were being prepared. What Japan really wanted was for the Americans to go ahead with their plan for a land invasion in hopes to crush them and weaken them enough so that they would alter their terms of surrender. It was obvious by this point that by no means could a naval blockade nor a fire bombing campaign could stop the Japanese either.
Consequently, the nuclear bombs were the only practical option remaining. The atom bombs insured a swift, blunt and less costly end to the war saving both Japanese and American lives.