Was The US decision to nuke Japan during WW2 justified?

Started by Kohai ·

Sign in to follow

On 6 and 9 August 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, during the final days of World War II. The aerial bombings killed 150,000 to 246,000 people, most of whom were civilians, and remain the first and only uses of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.

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

Where do you stand?

Sign in to share your stance.

Your stance can change. Your earlier arguments stay where you posted them.

For 50% · 4 Undecided 25% · 2 Against 25% · 2

8 participating members

Arguments for (2)

Savant

Nukes were necessary even if the execution was flawed

Alternatives were basically a land invasion or continuing to firebomb Tokyo or leaving the Japanese to starve in the winter, all of which would have left more Americans and Japanese dead. And the Japanese army was continuing to slaughter Chinese villages and commit plenty of war crimes that would continue unless the war ended. Dropping the two nukes just three days apart was probably not necessary, and using a demonstration bomb first probably would have helped, even though it was unlikely to lead to a surrender on its own. So while a more conservative use of nukes would have been better, the resolution just asks if nuking Japan was justified at all, which I think it was.

2 likes
JenKiggans2026

Almost certainly saved lives in the end

Pretty much what Savant said. WWII was already a long and excruciatingly brutal war and we would have remained locked in battle with Japan for who knows how many more years if not for two big groundbreaking (literally) inventions. It would have been a bloody war of attrition and countless civilians would have inevitably died from bombings, strafings, starvation, you name it. I think the real question is did Roosevelt really win the war or was it Truman? If Roosevelt hadn't died just in time, the second bomb on Nagasaki probably wouldn't have been dropped because he wouldn't have authorized it and Japan wouldn't have given up that easily. It was the second atomic bomb that sent a clear message that we weren't playing around and there was more where that came from.

1 like
Savant

Replying to GreatfulGoy

I don't think this is a great argument against the view. There can be cases where bringing up an opinion is in poor taste even if you sincerely hold it. Additionally, even if someone is a coward, beliefs they are too scared to say out loud may still be true. I may avoid saying one view in one area and avoid saying the opposite view in another, but they can't both be false.

0 likes
JenKiggans2026

Replying to GreatfulGoy

As a Japanese citizen then I would certainly not want an atomic bomb dropped on my country. As an American citizen 80 years later I see it as a good decision. The first bomb sent a message and the second one ended the war

0 likes

Arguments against (2)

GreatfulGoyEdited

Democrat Barbarism

No.


It was a genocide, no if no but. So was Nagasaki.


This is what is fascinating about Democrats of US, they have consistently been the side/party with more innocent blood on their hands, Republicans are actually the lesser evil.


Dems were with KKK when KKK were vicious, killing and all, Reps came to appeal more to KKK when KKK were passive, tame etc.


It is all interesting. US lacks an actual left wing party, it has 2 variants of Right Wing.

1 like
SatanLucy

I agree that nuking of Japan would by today's standards be a war crime.


If Russia used nuke on Ukraine's city today, would it be a war crime?


If yes, I don't see how nuking Japan wasn't a war crime.


WW2 was full of war crimes. By both allies and axis. It was not good vs evil, because no side in that war was truly good.

1 like
JenKiggans2026

Replying to SatanLucy

It was definitely a war crime but like you said there wasn't really a good side. It was just bad vs worse and bad "won"

0 likes
SatanLucy

What was the point?

Japan already lost. There was no way for Japan to even keep fighting. The common argument is that invasion of Japan would take a lot more lives, but why would there be invasion in the first place? Japan was by all means defeated and was no longer even capable of fighting outside it's borders. All it took was to just sign peace with Japan and war would be over. But they wanted Japan to surrender instead of just signing peace, and that was the mistake.

1 like
Savant

A temporary peace means Japan keeps its militaristic government and probably tries to wage war again some time in the future. The Japanese still had millions of troops in occupied territories and were slaughtering a ton of civilians. Long term, that probably leads to more deaths.

1 like
SatanLucy

Replying to Savant

Not really. Peace deal could have been made to sort that out.

0 likes
SavantEdited

Replying to SatanLucy

It was, but it required nuking Japan to get them to agree to the necessary terms. Not forcing Germany into unconditional surrender in WW1 led to WW2.

1 like
SatanLucy

Replying to Savant

Just reduce the necessary terms. I don't see why unconditional surrender is even necessary or reasonable term in the first place.

0 likes
Savant

Replying to SatanLucy

Because surrender with conditions means the Japanese military government continues to exist and probably keeps killing a lot of civilians. You can't remove the terms they don't like while also eliminating that threat.

1 like