Hiroshima day-How could such a barbaric act be perpetrated on a civilian city?Could it happen again?

Question

I Believe it was an awful crime.Unforgivable to inflict such a horror on men women and CHILDREN.

Answer 1

Um, do you need to be reminded about Pearl Harbor? I have yet to hear the Japanese apologize for that. We didn't have pinpoint targeting systems and smart bomb technology back in WWII, so if bombing civilian targets helped end the war sooner and saved more of our own military personnel, then so be it. Besides, we issued their government a warning and they ignored it.

Answer 2

I agree with you.  It's as great a single atrocity as has ever occurred.

Answer 3

It was total war meaning nothing was off the table. The Japanese Army was the first to approach war this way and their atrocities were many and horrible against the civilian populations they encountered. The A-Bomb actually saved lives by forcing the Japanese to surrender early.

Answer 4

Bob please grow up and grow a pair will you. Since you obviously have no knowledge of the history of the war it's best if you keep your ill informed opinions to yourself.

The blame for ALL the deaths from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki falls directly at the feet of Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese Military who authorized and started a war with us.

Answer 5

There was nothing special about Hiroshima. There were a few more casualties than with the conventional/napalm bomb raid on Tokyo of 9/10 March 1945, but that's quibbling.

The total Japanese dead from the war was about 2 1/2 million. That's a tenth of the number the Japanese killed. so anything that would shorten the war seems perfectly justifiable. Considering the huge number of civilians beheaded by the Japanese, it's likely the katana killed as many people as the two atomic bombs did.

Answer 6

Use of the bombs against Japan was indeed horrible, but there are questions you must ask yourself. How many more people would have died in a land invasion of Japan? Why did the citizens of Hiroshima refuse to head the warning leaflets advising of the impending detonation? Why after seeing the devastation of the first bomb did the Japanese High Command refuse to surrender making use of a second device necessary? The answer to your question is that it was war and it is never pretty, but we did not instigate it. The Japanese must bear responsibility for that. As to whether it could happen again? The answer is yes. If any country feels threatened enough and possesses the technology, they will use it.

Answer 7

That was bad but if the US invaded Japan the traditional way we would suffer allot of losses including the Japanese. The atomic bomb was not really know even by the US, they knew that will destroy the cities since they tested in US but they had no idea what will happen after that (children born with terrible defects). Then a war is a war they invaded our territory and killed civilians as well, plus the Japanese where way worse than the Germans when they invaded some countries (ask any Korean or Chinese), they tortured and killed civilians and prisoners any place they went. But a war is terrible and the civilians are ALWAYS the first ones to suffer, think how many millions died in Europe plus the  Americans who died in WW2 as well.

Check this link with the deaths from WWII (72 millions total)

Japan lost 580 000 civilians and China over 16 million (caused by Japan) plus all the pacific area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I...

Answer 8

More women and children where killed during the incendiary bombing raids on Japan before the bomb was dropped than in both atom bombs...  the Japanese killed more innocent Chinese than were killed in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima...  the attacks lead to the surrender of the Japanese without an invasion on the Japanese home islands, which is estimated to have prevented more than one million casualties on both sides that would have been the result of that invasion...  dropping those bombs was not the right choice, it was the ONLY choice...

Answer 9

You are only looking at one side of the story. The Japanese started with us. We finished what they started. They weren't going to give up. A land invasion of Japan would have cost many more American and Japanese lives than the bombing did. They needed a little demonstration of what we had cooking for them. That caused the emperor to surrender, and the Japanese people followed. They were trying to develop atomic weapons too. If they would have beat us to it, you better believe they would have nuked us. Remember who their ally was?

"America wanted to show the Soviet Union its new toy"

You are showing your willful ignorance.

Answer 10

Question 1:  justified by the US as saving more lives by ending the war immediately.  Question 2:  Sure, but not necessarily US instigated.

EDIT - not sure why the thumbs down for me.  Answer 1 is factually correct.  That is the reason given by the US government to justify the bombing.  Answer 2, while it is based in part on my opinion, is supported by facts.  Why do goverments like North Korea and Iran develop nuclear bomb programs if they never intend to use them?  Of course it could happen again and it may not be the US that does it.

For the asker:  if you already know the answer to your first question (as you explain in your "impress the Soviets" theory), then why ask it?  Trolling perhaps?

Answer 11

I for one am proud of the tough decision President Truman made. It must have been the most difficult decision of his life. These two bombs brought a swift end to a world war and most likely saved countless other lives had this war continued for another year.

When ever we evaluate past historical events. We should make every attempt to see them in their historical context.

Answer 12

Well at least you are not pretending to be looking at things with an open eye and you are pretty plain about being a troll.

For others that want to actually know the answer to your question, this is it:

The answer to your question is "lesser of two evils".

We were already firebombing Tokyo with impunity, to no effect, and it was looking like a ground invasion was needed to finish the war, yet the evidence from Iwo Jima and elsewhere was that it was quite possible the military and perhaps the entire civilian population would fight until there was no one left standing.

thus the argument is that the war was ended sooner, and at less cost to both Japan and the US then would have otherwise happened.

Not saying it was pretty, and clearly after 60 years there have been side effects militarily, politically, and diplomatically, but that is true with all decisions regardless.

Answer 13

Get a clue. Dresden? Pearl Harbor?

It was dropped to shorten the war, and ironically enough, save lives on both sides of the battlefield.