It was totally inappropriate to drop the atom bombs on Japan due to the fact that American military forces knew about the possible outcomes of such an actions. Moreover, a lot of peaceful citizens who did not participate in the Pacific war were killed. Many died during the next few months after the attack because of the significant injuries and its consequences. This bombardment was more a desire to test the nuclear weapon's power and effect rather than a real need in that situation to make the Japan to sign the Instrument of Surrender. Although the US tried to notice Japanese cities about the upcoming air raids, they did not tell anything about the nuclear weapon attack. In my opinion, the tests of any new dangerous types of weapons should be made within some isolated from people areas, when there will be no risk of damaging population's lives or injuring them.

Not wrong, because the Japanese would have never surrender otherwise. The Japanese at this time deemed it honorable to die in battle rather than return from battle unvictorious. Kamikaze pilots and this type of mentality were very common.

Morally? Yes.

Militarily? No.

Of course it was . We had no reason for that , and because people we did that , Japan is not trying to create this "rocket" thing to send "up to the moon" when it was clearly for us .

I might seem a bit biased as I am what many Americans call a "weeaboo", or someone obsessed with Japan and Japanese culture but I think Japan's leader was in the wrong--not Japan. Saying Japan as a whole is responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor would be exactly like saying someone high in the executive branch, Obama,'s views represent all of ours. He approves gay marriage-everyone in America does.

Anyway, I do believe Japan's leader at the time was too obsessed with power and taking over the world and should not have attacked us first. But, I also find it inappropriate to fight fire with devastation. The attack from Japan was on a measly island in our large country while we so "fairly" took out a large chunk of their already small territory. Such a powerful bomb could have been used as a warning and that would have probably been enough to frighten the Asian country but some of us had to say "nobody touches our land and gets away with it, because we're possessive savages and know how to make a huge weapon to blow your country to pieces". Besides, the attack on Hawaii was solely aimed at the military (less that half of America's population, far less) and we had bombed more citizens than anything else. We can go troll around Hawaii without a fear in the world but in Japan there are still effects of radiation from MORE THAN ONE ATOMIC BOMB. Most people (usually the younger ones) have already forgotten or have never even heard of the battle in Pearl Harbor but in Hiroshima the wound is still fresh.

It was the worse sign of fairplay ever. Nuking the 2 towns was completely unprovoked (well, not completly unprovoked but it still was extreme), it's not like any american towns were destroyed in the same way.

First, I don't under stand the idiots who think we should drop nukes everywhere. I know people who if they here of a problem they say drop a nuke. No, we will kill our selves.

anyways....

Yes and No

Yes because it killed many people, some instantly but some painfully from Radiation

No because it ended the war and prevented alot of bloodshead that could have come.

It was wrong on the moral and military levels. There can be no justification in killing innocent civilians, not to mention the scale on which this was done. Militarily, there had already been indications that the Japanese were willing to surrender, it was only taking longer than expected due to the allies "unconditional surrender" requirement and the question of whether or not Japan could retain their Emperor. They were using Russia as a third party mitigator and there were at least six messages as far back as June relating to this. Even Trumans panel wrote the report "The United States Strategic Bombing Survey" that said that there was no reason to have dropped the bomb and that Japan would have surrendered by the end of the year, probably by the beginning of November. Even Dwight D. Eisnehower said "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Yeah, it was wrong. There's no question about it. I have so many reasons to be against it. First, it's obviously wrong to kill innocent civilians for whatever reason, whether you're in "total war" or not. Plus, saying it was the lesser of two evils (which, admittedly, it was) doesn't mean it was good.

Also, the Potsdam Declaration didn't do an apt job of warning the Japanese, in my opinion. I understand why they didn't want to seem like they were bluffing by describing the bomb's effects, but the problem is that I think Japan didn't feel scared enough of "prompt and utter destruction." It also really annoys me that the Japanese victims were kind of like guinea pigs in this case so that Americans could record the effects. That's not fair! The people who were killed didn't do anything but happen to live in the same country that we were mad at, but that doesn't mean they even agreed with the policies all the time. Like I believe someone else mentioned, we may very well have killed people who actually wanted to end the war. Finally, I think that the Americans were mercilessly impatient in dropping the second bomb, because the effects were not really apparent until a few months later, so maybe if we waited long enough, the Japanese would have realized that one nuke was plenty. Instead, they first had to be hit, then they had to surrender, and then al the effects got through to them. I know that we couldn't have waited that long, and I know that again, the Americans didn't fully know what would happen either, but it's still extremely inconvenient.

I have plenty more arguments, but I think that's enough for now.

Yes, it was wrong. There were thousands and thousands of women and children killed.

The Atom bomb use in Japan was simply a test of its power, the second one even more, which shows that the use of atom bombs was simply a test o see how powerful it was by dropping it into a city and watching many human lives being taken away. So the use of Atom bombs wee purely for test and not necessary in any way an obligation to stop the war.

Under the assumption that, had the US not dropped the bombs, an invasion would be necessary then it was entirely justified. The alternative, Operation Downfall, would have been far costlier for the Japanese themselves. Under a National Mobilization Law passed in 1938, fighting was not restricted to the military. Even women and children were training to fight in the case of an invasion. Also, the Japanese were suicidal. It was a part of their culture. Not only that, it was highly encouraged to die fighting the enemy by fascist Japan. Hence, Kamikaze. An invasion would have been a massive bloodbath of slaughter and suicide for the Japanese civilians. The estimated casualties for the Japanese were between 10 million and 3 million. This vs the 129,000 killed in the bomb. Also, the US DROPPED PAMPHLETS WARNING THE JAPANESE. They warned them first. In Japanese. Not enough people know this. The cities were military and even though they did have civilians in them, the civilian death toll would have been far, far larger in the case of an invasion.

There's also this argument that since Japan would have surrendered conditionally, the US should have just accepted that. Conditionally meant that the emperor could stay in power, there would be no US military presence, and they, the Japanese, could do the war trials. But one must understand that the root of evil in the Japanese fascist regime had to be eliminated. Imagine giving Nazi Germany a conditional surrender so that they could do their own trials and Hitler could remain in power (with less influence). The truth is, the Japanese empire was as bad as Nazi Germany if not worse. It's arguable that this could have been a total disaster resulting in many more Chinese deaths and at least the continued oppression of the Japanese people.

There's also the argument that the second bomb was not necessary. But it actually was. After the Hiroshima, the top officials began trying to make their own bomb. Twas impossible. But they tried. Many of them assumed the US only had one. They didn't surrender, and that was probably why.

Also, yes, Russia did invade Manchuria on the same day as Nagasaki. So what? We don't know exactly why Japan surrendered and it may well have been a combination of both. In fact, it probably was because Japan had lost it's ability to negotiate through Russia when they invaded.

And to put this in perspective, 129,000 Japanese were killed in the bombs. Right, so in Nanjing 200,000 Chinese were mercilessly slaughtered and tortured to death... thousands of women were raped. Thousands upon thousands of Chinese were used for "killing practice" and "experimentation". Unit 731 was a "biological and chemical research development unit". The live subjects? Chinese prisoners. Hundreds of thousands of them not including those used for "medical practice in places such as unit 100. The Japanese caused the death of 25 million Chinese civilians. Everyone complains about the atomic bombs and how horrible they were but nobody even knows about this. It really pisses me off.

Anyway

War is horrible. People die. Civilians die. There is no excuse for creating unnecessary wars. Ever. And then perpetuating them and using the people as pawns is morally reprehensible. Which is why the warmongering leaders of Japan at the time are responsible for one of the greatest mass slaughters in history and the deaths of millions upon millions of people. They have thousands of pounds of blood on their hands including that of a certain 129000 Japanese civilians.

Well yeah, mate. I think it was a needless act. Those Jappos were already on their knees and had agreed to most of the surrender demands you Yanks had given them. Except they just wanted to keep their emporer installed. That Hirohito bloke. The Yanks had been fire bombing jappo cities for weeks anyway! Tens of thousands of those poor yellow buggers had already been fried. But your American history books didn't tell ya that, did they?

Russia was onnits way to Japan to help out. Truman deeply hated Russia spend was scared they were gonna grab Jalan for their sphere of influence. Do the bombs dropped. It was a hands off warning to the russkies.

Me dad was in British intelligence during the war. I learned all this shite that you blokes never got from your history books in school.

Cheers, mates!

Bugger......Wanted to add I personally have no sodding problem with you nuking the Jappos. They started it, you finished it. You guys helped us Brits an awful lot as well with the sodding Nazis. So in me book you're all bloody aces. But no, in reality Japan woulda fallen with no nukes and just another few days of incendiary bombing.

Arsenal!!!!

Was Japan a nation of homosexuals like Sodom and Gomorrah? Was it wrong for God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness?