Pearl Harbour, n***s, Hiroshima.?

Question

Do YOU believe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were and are Justified by the "rules of war" or in any way?

- We all know, well most of us do, that the Holocaust was one of the worst Genocides in human history and in no way is,can and will be justified.

But, what about the atomic bombs?

Sure the Japanese attacked Pearl harbour, which was a MILITARY base, and less than 60 civilians died during the tragic occasion, which should in no way be ever forgotten, although, the Americans did launch a counter attack, on two cities, killing thousands and permanently wounding millions with radiation, not to mention, these were innocent people, which most had nothing to do with the war in the first place.

Is American Actions Justified?

Answer 1

Now let us discuss the concept of "total war" ... the idea of winning the war is essential. It is absolute. If we fail we die. There are no substitutes.

Civilians at the beginning of war are always held in high esteem, except in "total war." When the "chips" are down and atrocities are encountered, the game and the rules change. War is not a static event. Both morally and strategically.

In a war, there are so many questionable things done... Where was the morality in the bombing of Coventry, or the bombing of Dresden, or the Bataan death march, or the Rape of Nanking, or the bombing of Pearl Harbor?"

Whilst it is sometimes stated that the three day delay between Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in order to give the Japanese time to surrender, the records show that this is not the case. In actual fact it was the second bomb was not delayed in order to give Japan time to surrender, but was waiting only for a sufficient amount of plutonium-239 for the atomic bomb.

If you have a weapon, and you are fighting for survival, you will tend to use it. Only later are you judged for the consequences of your actions.

At the time, a total war was underway, no 39th parallel, no line in the sand or air space to be denied us....some information was known, other information was filtered or unknown. Various groups were racing to influence decision makers to ensure that the bomb was used (eg. Groves), others were racing to prevent the bomb from being used (eg. Szilard, Einstein).

Some knew of the Japanese "peace feelers", others did not. Given the decisions and the forces pushing and pulling the situation at the time, the fact that a Russian invasion of Northern Japan was imminent, that Siapan and Okinawa did leave high casualty rates, the decision to use the bomb is understandable.

Answer 2

Sad to say, many innocent people are killed in wars. The United States was going to have to invade Japan to end the war. (Check the Japanese culture at that time and how the worshiped their leader and would die rather than surrender.  By dropping the " bomb" lives were saved and the war ended.

Answer 3

okay listen. when we were at war with japan, emperor hirohito said he would fight until every japanese died. those were his words. he attacked us first. and if he had technology to the atomic bomb he would have used it. this blame america first c**p is pathetic. we did what he had to do to end the war. also we had signed a declaration of peace with japan and they bombed us anyway. a cowardly sneak attack on the us. like it or not what those men did saved AMERICAN lives. they fight for america and japan would not stop so we did what we had to do. if we wanted to we could have dropped one on tokyo and killed hirohito but we didnt. there are no rules of war. when people kill other people out of jealousy and spite then the country attacked has every right to do everything they can to win the war as fast as they can. if they did not bomb pearl harbor, we would not have nuked civilians. stop blaming america for getting attacked after a declaration of peace.

Answer 4

yes

Answer 5

War is not a ball game. If you "fight fair," you're a danged fool. Although the US had condemned the Japanese bombing of civilian targets, it was perfectly reasonable to do the same to combat them.

Note that if you combine the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the total is less than a month's Chinese deaths at the hands of the Japanese during the war, and the vast majority of them were civilians, as well. That's about three million a year for eight years, in China and Manchuria alone!

It helps to know the enemy you'r fighting.

Note, too, that there was little way to avoid general bombing, even if there had been a strong desire to do so. Japanese cities were extremely densly populated, with no zoning to keep military and industrial areas separate from civilian, and the major war industries were more heavily concentrated in those urban areas than was the equivalent in, say, the US or Germany.

Answer 6

It's sad that innocent people had to pay for the actions of their government.

The Japanese almost captured the pacific nations, living in the pacific myself, I'm greatful that this attack kept the Japanese at bay, otherwise I'm sure my ancestors would have been raped and tortured- (look what happened to China.)

It was a quick decision.

Answer 7

Yes, sadly it is justified as horrible as it is. More people died in the conventional firebombing of Tokyo than in either of the atomic bombs, but they get the stigma of being the only nuclear weapons to be used in open warfare.

Invading Japan conventionally would have cost millions of lives on both sides, would have devastated the countryside and turned what cities were left standing into rubble. Conventional invasions would have killed more people than both atomic bombs combined. Invading Japan conventionally would have also paved the way for the Soviets to make significant gains against Japan, maybe even taking large chunks of it and setting up it's own puppet government. Although I am a fervent socialist, the Soviets at the time could care less about personal freedoms.

Lastly, ask  yourself, if the situation were reversed, if Japan had nuclear weapons, is there any doubt in your mind that they would hesitate to use them if it meant a quicker end to a long and bloody war?

Answer 8

The concept of strategical bombing was developed before WWI. The reasoning was that bombing cities would scare the enemy into surrender, thus saving the life of the bombing country soldiers.

(see http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200204/ke... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_b...

After WWI there were attempts to outlaw the practice, but the corresponding treaties were not universally adopted.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bomb...

As a result, the number of civilians killed in war has soared: while in WWI civilian deaths where 42% of the total (mostly due to famines), in WWII 87%  of the deaths were civilians.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_of... and thereabouts)

Answer 9

This is a question you should ask in the senior citizen category. There are some men from WWII who were active

in the military and could probably help you with this question.

  From my information, the Japanese did a very successful

air strike over Pearl Harbor, I thought more people than you

list were killed, on just the USS Arizona alone. I had a second

cousin who is buried inside, that I never met since I wasn't

born then. I have read that Roosevelt had heard of an impend-

ing air strike by the Japanese, and failed to warn the comm-

anders at the base. So the navy servicemen and women were

totally unprepared by the onslaught and running for their

lives as the fighters swooped down and fired openly. It was a

Sunday morning, and not many were on duty. Some were

returning from a late pass the night before. So that was

certainly not an honorable thing for the Japanese to do.

   When Roosevelt ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and

Nagasaki, he wanted all known factories obliterated to

handicap more aircraft and boats from being built to use

against us. These buildings were supposedly the focus

during non working shifts or when few would be working.

How the non workers reportedly killed were among the

statistics, no one knows. Or if this was a false claim to gain

sympathy. They say, "war is h**l" and when you are under

orders, you obey them, or be shot or court martialed. And

servicemen do as they are ordered. It is better to take lives

in enemy territory, than to wait for the day our enemies can

take our lives in our territory. Sometimes, nothing is fair during war times. And it's kill or be killed for those fighting.