Droping Nuclear bomb on Japan by USA was Fair or Unfair? a Philosophical Question?

Question

give your answer in points like

1

2

3

4

5

6 so i can choose your answer as best answer

jai sri krishna

Answer 1

123456 ....it was unfair

Answer 2

1( Its the utmost mistake.  So I want to treat it as no 1 mistake)

Answer 3

Not fair as u called destruction.

Answer 4

There is no fairness in war. So it was unfair.

Answer 5

Killing people by anyone at place at any time for any purpose is wrong.  Every killing is terrorism.  

Answer 6

Fair philosophically.

1.Japanese bombed the Pearl Harbor first right?

2.They killed US people by that bomb right?

3.So when philosophically thinking US got their every right to drop their bombs in Hiroshima And Nagasaki.

4.About the lives that were lost in Japan i think that's unfair and cruel.

Answer 7

6, because if you don't do some heavy damage to Japan they won't stop invading the world (or mainly asia)

if you think, killing a number of Japanese is harsh. you'd be surprised what the japanese did when they were on top. they raped chinese, filipinas, koreans, also killed a lot.

Answer 8

We were at war. Was it right? No. Logical course of action ? Sure.

3

Answer 9

Which one? Even if it is conceded that the Hiroshima one was dropped to 'save American lives', the Nagasaki one was simply taking advantage of the official state of war to mass murder as many of the 'evil' enemy as possible as long as this excuse existed,for the war, militarily-speaking, had long been over - as was the case with 'conventional' bombing over Europe in the last months of the war there.

Answer 10

It was unnecessary - so it was unfair.

Firstly, the Japanese originally had no intention of being at war with the US. One faction of the government, including the Emporer, were not militaristic and were looking to end the war. (See source.) Roosevelt heavily provoked them, because he secretly wanted to be in the war. He first tried provoking Hitler, but he didn't want to fight the US either.

Months before the bombs were dropped, the Japanese started trying to make a peace with the US. Their only condition was retaining their Emporer in power, and on that basis Roosevelt declined, even though it was granted after the nukes were dropped. A number of top army staff, including MacArthur, were against nuking the j**s (and were against going to war with them in the first place).

Some were in favour of a peaceful demonstration of the bomb instead.

The j**s were already defeated by then, and were desperate to stop the war. Roosevelt prolonged it merely to allow his good friends and fellow socialists, the Soviets, into the war in the Pacific as a pretext for taking territories in China and Korea (which are now Communists), since the j**s occupied or had attacked parts of East Asia. By that time j*p forces there were isolated and useless - unable to even get home. They would have had no choice but to surrender - if given the choice.

I'm not against using nukes if necessary. But the j**s would have to be suicidal to ignore weaponry that superior. Nukes are no worse than other ways of killing and maiming people. If bombing areas where there are civilians is necessary, it is still preferabel to your own civilian areas being invaded.

Answer 11

Sai Ram

You ask an impossible question.

Was it fair?

1. No

2. Was it honest - yes.

3. Did people live - yes.

4. Did people die - yes.

5. Did it end the war - yes.

6. It is impossible to reconcile what the Japanese did to deserve the first atomic bomb.

7. It is impossible to reconcile what the United States of America did in dropping that bomb.

8. It is conceivable to think that without the reconstruction of Japan by the United States that there would be a Japan today.

9.Do not be stupid.  Think.

10. Atomic warfare is wrong.

11. Japan knows this better than any other nation.  Not even Germany was hit by an atomic bomb and they  started all of WWII, and because Germans agreed with Americans to stop the war, America dropped the bomb.

12.  Of course, the Germans who agreed were taken out of Germany and brought to America.

13.  America is at fault.  Germany is at fault.  Japan is at fault.  

14.  War is wrong.  This current war is wrong.

Do you understand?

Answer 12

Many lives were saved....but indeed many more lives were lost. The true test lies in being able to answer the question : did the end justify the means? And in my opinion that answer is no. How anyone could justify dropping nuclear bombs and killing thousands of other human beings who, for the majority, were innocents....(220 000 people seems to be the agreed consensus from what I'm reading with regards to both bombings)....that I will never know. And perhaps if we can figure out the answer to THAT question, we'll be getting somewhere.  

Answer 13

What's FAIR is established by a moral code.

But War is the breakdown of moral code, so one cannot really describe an action in war as 'fair' or 'unfair'.

But it's pretty apparent that many American & Japanese lives were saved by the atomic bombings.

Answer 14

I think it was unfair, mainly because I have pacifist tendencies, but I know this won't satisfy most.

1) It targeted civilians, deliberately, alongside military targets (which is characteristic of Terrorism).

2) It generically and indiscriminately destroyed every living thing within it's impact zone - something that we'd condemn as monstrous in a sadistic soldier regardless of the 'outcome'.

3) We have a "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)" which makes any type of nuclear explosions internationally illegal. 71 states signed it and agreed it was wrong. Nuclear bombs are seen today as reprehensible under all circumstances, yet, we still try to justify Japan.

4) And finally, as it seems to me, a general philosophic point: the ends do not justify the means.