The atomic bombing of Japan? Justified?

After a recent discussion with a friend about this very topic, I have to ask. Was it justified?

I questioned his outrage over the loss of Japanese civilians, and asked where his outrage was about the estimated 500,000 civilians (countless among them women and children) that died during allied bombing raids over Germany towards the end of the war. Are the loss of their lives any more regrettable?

I think of General Sherman's quote from the American civil war:

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

What do you think?

I don't think the German civilians or Italian citizens are somehow worthy of any less outrage than we have about the Japanese citizens.

This is a very difficult subject to debate. I do see it as justified. Yes I have seen pictures of the aftermath and yes they are very graphic. But let's paint another picture. Numerous battles in the Pacific, soldiers on both sides dying, Japan occupying China, Korea and other Asian nations, and The Soviet Union quickly gaining ground with their victories in Asia. Which they defeated Japan in Korea if I recall; that is why they had a huge presence there before the U.S. arrived and gave support to the North Koreans. Japan was an Empire back then. Much different then the nation we see today. Japanese really did a number on other cultures and their soldiers were great fighters. One thing enabled the U.S. above all other nations at the time; which was nuclear weapons. President Truman figured he would use the weapon. Not just because of the destruction, but to scare the Japanese into giving up. After WW2 and during Eisenhower's presidency. He used the threat of nuclear weapons to scare the Soviets and the Chinese.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
After a recent discussion with a friend about this very topic, I have to ask. Was it justified?

I questioned his outrage over the loss of Japanese civilians, and asked where his outrage was about the estimated 500,000 civilians (countless among them women and children) that died during allied bombing raids over Germany towards the end of the war. Are the loss of their lives any more regrettable?

I think of General Sherman's quote from the American civil war:

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

What do you think?

I don't think the German civilians or Italian citizens are somehow worthy of any less outrage than we have about the Japanese citizens.

Japan wanted to surrender at least 3 months before the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki (excuse spelling)
All the major citys inJapan were alreadt reduced to rubble - They were not allowed to surrender because the USA and others wanted to test their new super weapon out and had reserved Nagasaki as the test ground. That is why people in Nagasaki could not explain why the conventional bombing planes always passed over and left them unscathed. It would be another 3 months before the project was put into action - For futher info read up about The Manhatten Project sorry I should have said Hiroshomi also
Regards artistpoet

reply to post by artistpoet


Sorry you're incorrect. Japan did not want to surrender. They refused too!
Wiki article on WW2
Read the quote and tell me what you think.

On 11 July, the Allied leaders met in Potsdam, Germany. They confirmed earlier agreements about Germany, and reiterated the demand for unconditional surrender of all Japanese forces by Japan, specifically stating that "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction". During this conference the United Kingdom held its general election, and Clement Attlee replaced Churchill as Prime Minister. When Japan continued to reject the Potsdam terms, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August. Between the two bombs, the Soviets, pursuant to the Yalta agreement, invaded Japanese-held Manchuria, and quickly defeated the Kwantung Army, which was the primary Japanese fighting force. The Red Army also captured Sakhalin Island and the Kurile Islands. On 15 August 1945 Japan surrendered, with the surrender documents finally signed aboard the deck of the American battleship USS Missouri on 2 September 1945, ending the war.

Originally posted by artistpoet

Originally posted by Darkrunner
After a recent discussion with a friend about this very topic, I have to ask. Was it justified?

I questioned his outrage over the loss of Japanese civilians, and asked where his outrage was about the estimated 500,000 civilians (countless among them women and children) that died during allied bombing raids over Germany towards the end of the war. Are the loss of their lives any more regrettable?

I think of General Sherman's quote from the American civil war:

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

What do you think?

I don't think the German civilians or Italian citizens are somehow worthy of any less outrage than we have about the Japanese citizens.

Japan wanted to surrender at least 3 months before the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki (excuse spelling)
All the major citys inJapan were alreadt reduced to rubble - They were not allowed to surrender because the USA and others wanted to test their new super weapon out and had reserved Nagasaki as the test ground. That is why people in Nagasaki could not explain why the conventional bombing planes always passed over and left them unscathed. It would be another 3 months before the project was put into action - For futher info read up about The Manhatten Project
Regards artistpoet

edit on 7-10-2010 by artistpoet because: typos

I agree. War is hell. But the cities of Germany were leveled by Allied bombers, with children in the streets crying for their mothers who were dead. Industrial centers, civilian centers, shipping ports..

I guess my point is, why is the loss of Japanese civilians somehow worse than the life lost in Germany or Italy somehow not worthy of equal outrage?

In no way was it justified. Pearl Harbor was a military facility. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were civilian inhabited cities. I know war necessarily has no rules but an act of such cruelty would be in this day and age considered terrorism. Would it not?

reply to post by Darkrunner


Most likely the nature of the bombings. It was just something new with those large and powerful explosions against Japan at the time. Since most Americans at the time didn't know nuclear weapons.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


No it wasn't terrorism. Japan declared war on the U.S. and then other Axis declared war on the U.S. You do know there were more then soldiers that were killed at Pearl Harbor?

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
In no way was it justified. Pearl Harbor was a military facility. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were civilian inhabited cities. I know war necessarily has no rules but an act of such cruelty would be in this day and age considered terrorism. Would it not?

Would the blind carpet bombing of Germany be considered the same thing? That's what I am asking.

reply to post by artistpoet


Japan wanted to surrender at least 3 months before the atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki (excuse spelling)
They were not allowed to surrender because the USA and others wanted to test their new super weapon out and had reserved Nagasaki as the test ground.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is simply not true. Japan tried to arrange a favorable ( to Japan ) surrender through the USSR, but suicidaly ignored the inevitable Allied victory from 1944 on. There was no chance of Japan winning the war, yet she dragged the conflict on for years costing countless lives because she refused to surrender.
Go READ A BOOK on the assaults on Iwo Jima, Saipan, Guam etc. . Not some internet propaganda. Actions where nearly every last Japanese was killed out of sometimes TENS of thousands because they refused to surrender.
Japan only surrendered after two atomic weapons were used. The Emperor could have ordered the surrender any time he chose. He didn't, the blood was on his hands.
Here's a news flash for the uneducated, America was not the bad guy in WW2, the facist empires of Germany and Japan were. These fascists cost 50 million lives.
God I'm sick of ignorance and revisionism!

reply to post by OldDragger


Here's the information you're looking for.
Postdam conference
Thank me later.

On a moral standpoint, which most people feel, it is not justified at all. The war was terrible and millions of Japanese and Americans died on the Pacific front, not to mention the amount of Europeans that died on the European front. The bombs were dropped on civilians, though it was thought they were using factories in those cities to build weapons, which is very much likely. Still, all those innocent people died in an instant, and many more suffered for years to come.

On a militaristic standpoint, which the world should feel at least partially, it is justified. The world witnessed the power of the Atomic bomb and it ended WW2, and has to this day prevented WW3 from happening as easily and as quickly as WW1 and WW2.

I am split on this topic, I can see both sides.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Of course there where civilians killed in Pearl Harbor. I would be willing to bet some military personal got killed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki as well.

So it's only terrorism if another group or Government other than your own does it?

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


No! But Terrorism a word with many different definitions. Defitions of Terrorism
Of course it was an act of war and a much quicker way to end the war.
There are no rules or fouls to war.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
There are no rules or fouls to war.

There are rules of war, both written and unwritten.

The Geneva Convention would be an example of rules of war, but that happened after WW2. Prior, it was just unwritten rules that no one really seemed to follow like keeping your prisoners alive.

Civilians, unfortunately, die in the crossfire of war. It has happened in every single war in the history of this planet.

Moral, schmoral, would you rather it had been the Germans or Japanese dropping it on us? The Germans were very close to having an atom bomb, and they would have given it to Japan to help them defeat America. War is immoral, but that doesn't stop it from happening, does it? How many million more would have died or been maimed if the War had gone on for another year? Look at the predicted losses on both sides if we would have had to invade Japan. What difference does it make if it's incendiary bombing or nuclear bombing? It's kinda like what Patton said, and I paraphrase..."it is not the duty of our soldiers to die for their country, it their duty to insure the other SOB dies for his".

Originally posted by Modern Americana
On a moral standpoint, which most people feel, it is not justified at all. The war was terrible and millions of Japanese and Americans died on the Pacific front, not to mention the amount of Europeans that died on the European front. The bombs were dropped on civilians, though it was thought they were using factories in those cities to build weapons, which is very much likely. Still, all those innocent people died in an instant, and many more suffered for years to come.

On a militaristic standpoint, which the world should feel at least partially, it is justified. The world witnessed the power of the Atomic bomb and it ended WW2, and has to this day prevented WW3 from happening as easily and as quickly as WW1 and WW2.

I am split on this topic, I can see both sides.

I agree. War is humanity at it's worst.

But how is firebombing Dresden any better or any worse than dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima? I always hear about American being an asshole for dropping the bomb on Japan.

I guess I wonder how some war is acceptable and other war is not. At the end of the day, people by the thousands are dead.

reply to post by Darkrunner



I think any form of bombing on civilians is unjustified. You kill thousands just to get to a few. Most civilians don't want to have anything to do with the fighting or else they would be involved already.

When I was in the Navy I heard this reasoning from a rather intelligent co-worker:

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both POW camps for American troops. The US wanted to show off their new bomb to the world, specifically Russia. Those cities were chosen because they had a large number of American prisoners and the US wanted to send the message to the world that we will bomb a civilian target and kill thousands of own men and we are crazy enough to do it again.

Here's what Hirohito said to the Japanese people.

"Our one hundred million people, the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects; or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the Acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."

This is part of the speech broadcast to the nation.
I have been on a binge the last year studying the Pacific War. People have no idea what occured. The violence, the savagry, the indifference to human life and suffering.
Morality went out the window on Dec 7th. To sit back at a computer and try to apply some abstract code of morality on the war is insane. The war war itself was pointless and insane. In the Pacific, the guilty party was Imperial Japan in setting out to expand it's Empire by invading other nations. Imperial Japan was an insane society that cared nothing, nothing at all about even the suffering and survival of it's own citizens. It was prepared to commit national suicide rather than surrender. It had to be stopped, the war ended by any means. In the case of WW2, the end certainly did justify the means.