Are You Normal?

Ask your question today!

Home > All Categories > Thoughts

Was the use of atomic bombs in WWII necessary?
Favorited (undo) 17 Comments

A bit controversial but I was wondering how you guys feel about this topic. Discussions are welcome.
27
19
Skip & see results
Next >>
Does this post fit one of these flags? If so, click it! [Off Topic] [Inappropriate] [Best Of] [Vulgar] [Funny] [Fake] [Weird] [Interesting] [Stupid] [Lame] [Messed Up]
Comments (17)
dom180
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
The first bomb, probably. The second bomb, definitely not.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
4
4
mizeka
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
In my honest opinion, ending a war by killing thousands of civilians is never justified.

However, I do understand the reason why they did it. The bombs certainly ended the war.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
3
3
SuperBenzid
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
Absolutely not. I think it would have been permissable to use on military targets though given the conditions of that war.

That about it like this if Japan had of developed nuclear weapons and nuked Los Angeles. Are you really telling me that it wouldn't have been thought of as a war crime? Would it have been justified?
If not then surely America's use of nuclear weapons against civilians is also unjust.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
2
2
-
ReighIB
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
@: SuperBenzid
My thoughts exactly. As an American, I feel ashamed that the American military at the time had to resort to killing thousands of innocent people. I sincerely believe that was one of the ultimate war crime in recent history. We used two of the most destructive weapons in the world on a ISLAND country. The sheer fact that killing thousands of innocent people didn't boggle the American military's mind is something I can never comprehend.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
1
1
abominus566
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
well from a personal note i would say no, for the reason,as said already too many were killed, but it did make japan back off, in that sence i think it was the only thing to do at the time, still think that too many were killed.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
1
1
Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
My reaction is that it was unnecessary, but then again I can't be sure what would've happened otherwise...
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
1
1
-
InvadingPotatoLeader
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
@: Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs
Japan would have kept fighting until they had no troops left.
This would mean the death of many more US soldiers.
The USA had to prevent this and took the lives of civilians instead.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
2
2
-
Anonymous Poll Creator
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
@: InvadingPotatoLeader
"Japan would have kept fighting until they had no troops left."

Is that just an opinion or is it based on some evidence?
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
2
2
-
wigsplitz
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
@: Anonymous
I think it's a fact, that's what my grandpa said too, long ago, and he was in WWII. RIGHT in it, his ship was hit by a kamakaze in the Pacific. He was a Naval officer. I've gathered that impression from reading about the Japanese and other Asian culture, WWII, and from hearing other veterans say the same. Many militaries don't retreat untill they absolutely have to, what that meant back then and what that means now may be 2 different things. Especially when you're talking about the level of knowledge of (repercussions of) atomic bombs from now to then.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
1
1
-
marron
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
@: wigsplitz
That's true. Surrender was unthinkable to the Japanese. So unthinkable that Suzuki literally fell on his sword. But that's not to say they didn't consider it before their cities were leveled. They approached China late in 1944 and Russia in the early summer of 1945. In the latter case, Russia was persuaded by the US not to accept Japan's surrender. There were multiple reasons for this.

- Russia was, at the time, in a better position to "acquire" Japanese spoils. Japan knew a surrender would be desirable to the Russians which is why they offered
- The US was close to developing a weapon which would avenge Pearl Harbor
- That same weapon would establish US dominance (over Russia) once war ended

I understand what the Japanese did during the war but, because one country commits atrocities, that doesn't mean every other country has automatically acted supremely ethically. The first casualty of war is the truth.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
1
1
chicken471bologna
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
@: Anonymous
It is FACT.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
0
0
-
marron
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
@: chicken471bologna
Moron.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
1
1
MockingVenus
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
It should've never been used on civilians. The most I could justify is if we dropped one on a military target. But, the past is the past, no going back now, the best we can do is learn from it and move on.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
1
1
marron
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
Of course. We had to do it. We can't have people getting ahead of us. Our economy is more important than those foreign lives. Kill them all.
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
-3
-3
-
wigsplitz
1 year, 4 months ago | pl
@: marron
Apparently you're not aware of anything Japan did prior to this point?
Comment Hidden (show)
Report
Reply
2
2

Sorry, you need to be signed in to comment.

Click here to sign in or register.

Check out these other IIN posts or create your own: