Was the atomic bomb used justly or unjustly on Japan?
- nonpartisanLv 62 months agoFavorite Answer
Even Truman's advisers warned him against it.
"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” - Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff
- bluebellbkkLv 72 months ago
The horrors of Okinawa and Iwo Jima were still fresh in everyone's minds, yet still the Japanese refused to surrender. The bomb was the last resort, intended to save the lives of the thousands and thousands of Allied POWs, imprisoned, starving and being tortured all over the Far East and SE Asia.
- Old Man DirtLv 72 months ago
Acts of war such as this are rationalized to be just (or unjust)!
Japan had already engaged in biological warfare in China and had attacked the mainland USA with biological weapons (anthrax). They had also tried using incendiary bombs on the forests of the North West.
None of those acts were just and at least one was a violation of the Geneva conference. Not that Japan had ever attempted to abide by the Geneva conventions of war. They executed prisoners of war, practiced genocide and over all were very barbaric.
Post war records show that Japan planned on attacking the USA with bubonic plaque in November of 1945. They had the means (a sea plane that could be carried by submarine, assembled, mission flown and recovered) by which to carry it out.
If the Japanese had been allowed to have the time needed and the US public found out that it could have been avoided the sum total of damage done to the USA far exceeded the losses to Japan by using the atomic bomb.
Read up on Unit 731!
- 2 months ago
Justly.Because it helped them create Anime and Hentai.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- EnguerarrardLv 72 months ago
What was just about WWII? It was a total war, and all sides did criminal things.It's wonderful that the Nazis were defeated, and the Chinese were very glad the Japanese were driven out of China, but none of that could have been done without modern weapons, and lots of them.
At the time, the atomic bomb was simply an awesome, big bomb. Tokyo had already been firebombed, and the horror of that was that people knew they were trapped and would burn to death. At the time, no one foresaw the nuclear arms race.
- robert xLv 72 months ago
Using the Atom bomb was a means to and end. The justification of using the Atom bomb was that it would save lives and end the war. The justification was right.
- Gray BoldLv 72 months ago
President Truman always said attacking Japan with atomic bombs saved many lives on both sides; military estimates for the invasion of mainland Japan were that it could take a year and result in 250,000 to 500,000 U.S. casualties. Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, and Nagasaki three days later, leaving 105,000 dead. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 9 and invaded Manchuria. Japan agreed to surrender the following day.
- Anonymous2 months ago
The battle of Okinawa showed how harsh the fighting would be for an actual land invasion of Japan's main islands. Projection were for millions of death -- around 1.7 to 4 million casualties in Allied troops with 400,000 to 800,000 dead; and up to 10 millions Japanese.
Alternatively, one bomb would kill about 100,000 people. And the second bomb was launched only after Japan's official position was released, said position being essentially "we don't believe you have another bomb, we will fight to the last one".
So, yeah. Justified. It saved about 10 million lives.
- Anonymous2 months ago
It was not a case of just or unjust.
The Allies had built and tested the atomic bomb, if they had decided not to use it, invaded Japan by conventional landings, lost hundreds of thousands (potentially), and then had to admit to a nation of voters that they possessed a weapon that could have ended the war with almost no (Allied) losses, would the regime have survived?
- InquizetifLv 72 months ago
Justly. Not using the atomic bomb would have caused millions more Japanese deaths and hundreds of thousands more Allied casualties. Also, in war there is no justice. There is what there is and Japan was lucky to just be bombed twice after committing atrocities, War Crimes, Human Experimentation and Crimes Against Humanity for the entire duration of their wars. The Japanese called the Geneva Convention a joke and ignored it completely. It is funny how often this question is asked, as if Japan was mistreated by nasty wasty big bad America.