The atomic bombing of Japan? Justified?

This has been a topic here many times.

YES it was justified.

I lived in japan for 3 years and visited Hiroshima. The museum and memorial are well done. Japan at that time was a war machine. Even 6 year old kids were working full days in bullet factories. They were not going to surrender. No matter what the propaganda says .. they were not. We warned them what was coming ... when it was coming ... and even from what direction the planes were coming. We warned them to surrender. They didn't. Therefore, we ... THE VICTIMS OF JAPANESE EXPANSIONIST AGGRESSION ... ended the war and saved many many American lives by doing so.

Justified. The end.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
I would be willing to bet some military personal got killed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki as well.

You don't get it. The ENTIRE population was a war machine. Old women. Young children. EVERYONE. They all worked for the war effort. 6 year old kids went to school in the morning and then spent all afternoon and evening making bullets. Old people worked the war effort. Young people. Everyone. It was one big war machine. And they were NOT going to surrender.

Even the Japanese museum at Hiroshima admits that the entire population was part of the war machine.

America was the victim. It had a right to defend itself to it's utmost capability. It had a duty to do so.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I think the issue is not should we have used the A-bomb on Japan, rather should we have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I personally think we should have gone after their Navy with a-bomb and dropped it on an entire battle group, if that didn't make them surrender then go after a land based target.

You have to put it into context. From today's perspective, it wasn't justified. Back then there was a different issue. Nobody really understood what was at stake. They just thought of it as a big bomb. There was a general back then who said, "You guys got another one of those things?" wanting a third bomb. Today that's abhorant.

My father was in the Phillipines during the war. His unit was goping to be part of the invasion force. The military expected to lose 1 million American soldiers in an invasion of Japan. A total of 160,000 people died in the two explosions. My father told me they knew something big was up. Had the bombs not been dropped, his feeling was that he would not have survived and I would not be alive.

That begs the question of whether the assumptions were correct. There is some evidence that the Japanese were nearing the end of their rope anyway and were considering a surrender. If that is actually true, then the bombs were, quite literally, overkill, because the equation wasn't simply a million to 160K.

One possibility would have been to evacuate an island, invite the Japanese to a little show, and blow up the island with no loss of life, then suggest Tokyo was next. That, it seems to me, would have been a reasonable alternative under the circumstances.

Back then, they just did the math.

come on liberals are you really trying to make a murder out of your own?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt : fatman and little boy were created and design built and tested
Harry S. Truman fatman and littleboy were used

both democrats

japan started the war fact we retaliated we fought we bled we died and we lost loved ones too......

had the war dragged on and those weapons were never used it has been estimated that at 1 million more us personnell would have died... not to mention the thousand of not millions of japanese that would have been killed and by disease and starvation.....

like he said hiro hito could have stopped it at any time he didnt and what happened is all on his hands.....

he ordered the bombing of japan to begin with and he order everything that followed........nah

those deeds had to be done if they were'nt done you wouldnt be sitting there right now whining about it--------meh

reply to post by neo96


I'm a Liberal. Are you applying that Liberals are weak and scared of admitting to War?
Look at Andrew Jackson and countless other leaders who were and today are Liberals. Not Socialist.
Dwight Eisenhower even consider he favored Liberal politics.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


nah man the biggest death and destruction in this nations history has been at the hands of your kind well not so much your kind the liberals of old.........

from world war 1 ,world war 2, the korean war, vietnam bosnis/kosovo, to somalia..................millions have died at their hands.............but wait all those were "justified"


but todays liberal is weak and scared sorry its true

reply to post by neo96


Well of course the President during the end of these wars were Liberals. Instead of the Korean War and Vietnam War Non of the Presidents started the war; we had to fight! So I know where you're coming from. It's just not us Liberals to be blamed for death.

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


let me ask you this:


how far are you willing to go for your ideals your principles and your convictions?

more often than nought a quarrel can not be won simply by a duel of just words....if that were the case the world would have never fought any wars at all..........

we all have weakness we all have fear but its what we do with them that define who we are as individuals.....

does that make any sense?

things have to be done and more often than naught its things we detest and hate but they are necessary if we just sit back and do nothing this nation and its history and its people is lost..........


nothing personal rebel we all are who we are and nothing more

The most important outcome of war is that we can learn from it, justified or not. If we learn nothing, or refuse to apply those lessons forward, then war is a waste and people die for nothing.

reply to post by Darkrunner


The only rational answer to your question is yes . A naval blockade would have ended up killing three quarters of the population which would have meant that no Post War miracle would have taken place . Japan would have ended up a poor agricultural country like the Philippines . Macarthur ego driven plans for landing on the Japanese mainland would have lead to the allies bleeding manpower before the enemy was defeated . The percentage of the population in Japan not tied up with the war effort was very low . Many of the factory's were spread amongst peoples homes and much preparation was put into kamikaze attacks in the event of allied landings .

reply to post by Darkrunner


The sad truth is that bombing and killing is never justified.

But when Japan became the agressor, it showed that they did not care about their people.

Millions of innocents died everywhere in wars.

When will mankind realize that wars do not solve problems - they only create more problems.

If you have ever doubted the sheer cruelty and inhumanity which resided within 1940's Japan and if you find yourself feeling remorse and sorrow for the poor Japanese who were bombed, then I would strongly urge you to visit this subject -


The horror to end all horrors, atrocities so horrendous and unspeakable the American government had no choice but to cover up the truth for almost 60 years.


I give you UNIT 731

Hell yes it was justified.

Drop it! Twice!

First off, Many need to realize that not only did the Japanese start the war in the Pacific but they were not about to surrender, it was against their Bushido code. Second, not only that but it would have cost the allies upwards of a million casualties not to mention how many millions of Japanese soldiers and on top of that hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese civilians that would have been caught in the crossfire.


And before anybody points their holier than thou finger at the US research the fire bombing of Dresden.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were civilian inhabited cities.

I wonder why you ignored the fact that" Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops"

also "the city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."

Those facts are thing that apologists for the japanese totally ignore!

I'm not a fan of this guy, but he covers it spot on.

reply to post by BlackOps719


I am the first to agree that Japan is a cruel country.

But I am speaking on behalf of peaceful and non-harmful Japanese - which I am sure are many.

You cannot damn the people of a country because of what their leaders are doing.

reply to post by catwhoknows


Why not? They did it to the German people.

Watch the videos, see what the Japanese had planned for the rest of the world and the cruelty they were inflicting as they went. They had to be stopped cold in their tracks.

It had to be done.

reply to post by BlackOps719


Hi, Black,

I know, but most of the Japanese people are not like this.

But I have to say, if the Japanese stopped murdering endangered whales I might like them better.

reply to post by BlackOps719


Also, Black,

Would you like to be damned by what your country has done?