Was the bombing of hiroshima & nagasaki justified?

The bomb in Hiroshima is reported to have killed an approximately 80-120 thousand people. Half of them died immediately and the second half died a slow and agonizing death over the next 4 months. In Nagasaki, an approximately 60-80 thousand people died. Just like in Hiroshima, half of them died immediately and the other half died the upcoming 4 months. All in all, around 200 thousand people died. The vast majority being civilians. Was it right to drop those bombs over Japan to frighten them into surrendering?

Yeah it was justified 25
No it wasn't justified 24
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 38 )
  • CozmoWank

    They asked for it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • raisinbran

      They begged for it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • PickelRickle

        They screamed for it

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • CozmoWank

          They ordered fried rice and by golly we delivered!

          Comment Hidden ( show )
  • It sucks that civilians died, but they hardly gave us a choice. The 2nd bomb may have been questionable.

    I think their society now is better than it was before, because of Western influences. But of course I would say that.

    Good riddance to the Japanese Imperial Army though. I've no sympathy for them, particularly not after reading about the Nanking Massacre.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • factcheck

      If you’re mad about what the Japanese did in Nanking, just wait until you find out what the United States did in Okinawa during its occupation after the battle was long over(including mass rapes of women by the thousands, for months; there were also thousands of rapes during the occupation of Japan after their surrender), and what the US military did to the Japanese in general during the war. The US did similar things in several European cities as well, though not at the scale of Nanking. And then, of course, there’s all the war crimes committed in Vietnam and the Middle East.

      Btw, it’s interesting that you brought up Nanking, because a lot of people in Japan use all the same arguments to justify those war crimes as the United States does to justify their nuclear bombings. That it was militarily necessary, etc. Ironically, the USA’s actions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more people and did more long term damage to the area than Japan’s actions in Nanking.

      It’s funny how actions on one side get downplayed and even justified in the collective mindset of people on that side, but when the other side does the same thing, it’s easy to see how horrible they are. It really should help you either stop defending your side or have a little more sympathy for the other.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • I really wish the afterlife will bring us peace and love as a single entity with no more pain and suffering.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
      • I never defended war crimes that the US did. Also, how could rapes and killing babies be considered "military necessities"? That's a piss poor excuse for anyone.

        I have sympathy for the Japanese civilians who were raped and killed, but dropping at least one of those bombs was a necessary step to force Japan to surrender.

        War is just certain countries sanctioning their people to go and kill members of other countries for whatever reason. None of it is pretty or wholly honorable. That being said, I'm going to side with my country acting in its own benefit.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • LornaMae

    That was a low blow on a who's got the biggest dick fight!!!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Ummitsstillme

    It is impossible to say. The Japanese were so loyal to the emporer and would have given their individual lives to fight to the death(kamikaze). A gound invasion of allied forces would likely have resulted in a much larger human casualty than the nukes extolled. Long term fallout is another quantifying factor though. It is impossible to rewrite history to determine what another version tells, but i do believe the first bomb saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The value of the second is definitely questionable.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • nikkiclaire

      I wouldn't assume kamikaze pilots were loyal and doing the "honorable" thing. That might be the story, but I bet it was at the point of a gun to their families heads.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • McBean

      I agree that the first bomb saved hundreds of thousands of additional lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Japan. But the second bomb was a black mark against the U.S. in world history. The lack of restraint was interpreted by Russia as dick waving. Got the Cold War off on the wrong foot. Diplomatic credibility was lost for a long time.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • This is pretty much the same thing my freshman American History teacher (yes, the one I fucked for the 4 years I was in high school) said. His grandfather had been severely wounded at Guadalcanal and so he really loved studying about that period of history. I really did learn a lot from him.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • cipro

    They did it for the lulz.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • factcheck

    Of course they weren’t justified. They hastened Japan’s surrender by at most two months, and may have had absolutely nothing to do with their surrender.

    The US was launching a very successful campaign of conventional bombings that would’ve likely lead to Japan’s surrender on their own before a full ground invasion would’ve been necessary. But Japan was hoping to get Russia on their side and prevent the US invasion...once Russia’s invasion started, that’s when they knew the war was lost and they would have to surrender. It just so happened that the nuclear bombings coincided with that invasion.

    Of course, the Allied Powers also could’ve offered more favorable surrender terms and ended the war before any of that was necessary, but we don’t like to talk about that because anything less than total and complete surrender and humiliation is viewed as a loss. Why would anybody want to learn from what happened in Germany after the First World War.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • EnglishLad

    War is never justified.

    Pearl Harbor wasn't justified, neither was America's retaliation.
    Selling a shit ton of weapons to Saudi Arabia which they can pass onto ISIS isn't justified, and neither is dropping missiles and shit on Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

    How come we only rest in peace? How many fucking wars must the west have to continue fighting for us to finally be able to live in peace too?

    Can't the USA export marijuana to Saudi Arabia instead of weapons? Like, if you're high as fuck, you don't even have the will to lift your fucking arm let alone fight, you just want to giggle your tits off and eat chocolate...

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Found the lefty? Be realistic.

      In the wise words of one Sir Biebs the Hypocrite, "Never say never." Sure, war is never good, but it can be necessary.

      Many times it isn't though. However, if one country harasses and attacks another, is the justified retaliation against the assailant considered war, or self-defense?

      It's war - the waging of armed conflict against an enemy.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • EnglishLad

        I'm not a lefty, I'm a centrist. Getting into wars you have no part in is a stupid thing to do. No-one should have to go to war with anyone, and no yank should ever try to take the moral high ground on this as the USA has more corruption and more blood on its hands than anywhere else in the world, including my country.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Well la-de-da! I'm a centrist as well. I agree with most of what your latest comment said. However, while the USA is far from innocent in regards to bloodshed, I don't believe we're more corrupt than anywhere else.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
    • palepunk

      WWII was pretty justified. As was the American Civil War... the war of 1812...

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • nikkiclaire

    I personally believe that if you feel the need for war (something which is never justified imho) then there should be no rules. All out fucking brutal, barbaric, whoop ass.

    If you are going to do something, and your conscience has no problem, go all out.

    If you can justify any war, you can justify all brutality, so don't give me some bullshit about a just and honorable war.

    Don't rape me and thank me afterwards out of some kind of guilt. Live with your descisions. All or nothing.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • randypete

    They asked for it fucking savages

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Anyone who supports, or God forbid, is a commie, facist or a Nazi can burn in hell. Fuck their Imperial Amry of rapists, bandits, and slaves to the emperor.

    Civilians deaths and mistreatment is always an unfortunate part of war. However, I maintain that the USA did what was necessary to bring Japan to its knees.

    Things have been uphill for Japanese culture after they were set straight by America.

    Thankfully, the closest thing to a military that they're allowed to have is now controlled by the Ministry of Defense.

    After the behavior of their army, (mass rapes, torture, human experimentation ect) that served them right.

    I AM a hypocrite for America. We have committed unjustifiable cruelties, but I would never want our independent military taken away.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • SmokeEverything

    Would that make my statement more or less believeable? (It is proven fact)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • factcheck

    Also it’s funny that you bring up Russia and the Cold War because fun fact: the Cold War wouldn’t have happened, or at least it wouldn’t have been nearly as intense, if the US hadn’t shown a willingness to drop nuclear bombs. We forced Russia(and subsequently any other country that wants to be taken serious as a national power, including North Korea) to nuclearize themselves with those bombings. Not only was it completely unjustified and the worst war crime in human history, it wa also the dumbest - and has had the most disastrous consequences - of any military decision ever made. Yep, even worse than the invasion of Iraq that lead to ISIS.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • McBean

    You are certainly right about the voracity of Japanese military culture. My point is a bit controversial, but there was never even a vote in the three days between the bombs, so they never declined. Finally, nine days later on August 15th, under the Emperor's authority, they voted in favor of surrender mostly because the Russian invasion of Manchuria was turning into a embarrassing cake walk.

    I am saying, the Hiroshima attack without Nagasaki would have been good enough for the surrender vote on August 15th. They wanted to avoid the humiliation of a loss to the Russian Army. They already expected to show national honor by defending the country against a U.S. ground invasion by dying to the last man. One million casualties were expected.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • SmokeEverything

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were carpetbombed and because most of the buildings were paper and wood type structures they all burnt down. this is why brick buildings are still standing today. Nuclear bombs don't exist, Japan agreed to the lies because it gave them a way to keep their honor while surrendering and Nukes have been a tax scam like moon travel ever since! Great news for everyone, you don't have to feel bad anymore!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • lordofopinions

      No nukes? Are you brain dead?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • No, he just smokes everything so it's understandable

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • SmokeEverything

          all my fake nuke stuff keeps getting deleted. Maybe they don't want you to hear any of this. It's understandable.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • You're on drugs, aren't you? All that conspiracy shit can't simply arise from nothing.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • SmokeEverything

              Yes, I am actually on drugs most of the time, I'm not trolling here.

              Proof of nukes:

              1) Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Carpetbombed, then blamed on nukes to create a fake doomsday weapon and give japan an excuse to surrender)

              2) Videos of nukes blowing up models of houses and towns (FAKE, because they are models)

              3) "Islands" being blown up by nukes (Creating mushroom clouds that could also be created by large stacks of dynamite)

              If there is no proof of something that couldn't be fake, how can you believe in it? Nobody on here has ever seen a nuke, you'd figure if people had enough money they would be able to pay for a small nuke just to see it go off. Nuclear weapons are basically just a tax scam.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
    • factcheck

      No no, you’re thinking of the carpet bombings of Okinawa, Tokyo, Nagoya, etc. The confusion is understandable, but it’s very easy to tell the difference when you look at the cities and the aftermath. Hope that helps.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • SmokeEverything

        It's actually impossible to tell the difference, "real" nukes wouldn't have left buildings standing which continue to stand to this day. There is no confusion, they are all the same. You're just parroting that it's easy to tell the difference because your cognitive dissonance tells you I can't be right.

        Comment Hidden ( show )