ANSWERS: 13
  • Justified, saved lotsa American lives!
  • At the time is was totally justified because it saved thousands of lives on both sides. Today people would be very upset. Times and societies have changed. Something most Americans do not know is Japan just about had an operational bomb of their own. They were testing it. The test failed. If it had been successful Japan would have continued the war in spite of America's bombs.
  • Unjustified since we knew ahead of time Pearl Harbor would be bombed.WE let it happen to test our great invention.
  • Was Japan bombing Pearl Harbor when the US not in the war humane or justified?
    • we are dough 68
      Opportunistic.
  • War is always an inhuman thing. But totally necessary.
  • inhuman
  • It was both inhumane and justified.
  • It was justified. You can bet that if Japan or Germany had gotten the bomb first, they would have used it for sure! The empire of Japan had been expanding and inflicting Asia with untold cruelties as they crushed and enslaved the peoples for the profit of the empire of Japan. They started that war, we didn't. The wisdom of the era was that after nearly 5 years of bloody war, we would need to invade the home island to fully defeat Japan. The estimates were another million lives would be lost. The bomb made invasion unnecessary, and the lives lost were enemy lives, and not Americans. My father was shot and wounded by the Japanese, his brother in law was captured and beheaded by them. His body was lost for over 50 years until a graveyard was found on an island in the jungle. My mothers brother was an army air corps pilot, and he was shot down and his body never recovered, courtesy of the empire of Japan. The people today who whine and wring their hands over the "poor Japanese" people "victimized" by the Americans were not even born yet when that war was being fought, and all it's hardships being endured, abroad and at home. If we had had to fight them another year at the time with the human losses mounting up daily, they might never have even been born to cry for the enemy.
  • It was a crime against humanity and totally unnecessary. They weren't deterred by the bombs - they surrendered because the Soviets were knocking on their back door. And to educate a few people, the attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of treason on the part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He helped get the war in Europe going with the intent of involving the United States since his New Deal policies proved to be failures. He campaigned in 1940 that he would keep America out of the war while, at the same time, painting disturbing pictures about how easily Hitler could attack the American coast and that America ought to be prepared. However, the US held a neutral position where the European war was concerned - they "had no dog in the fight", and therefore Congress wouldn't give FDR their approval. It was a conflict being fought on the other side of the world and didn't involve American interests. To sidestep Congress, FDR lured Japan to Pearl Harbor by first setting up blockades around the Pacific and then promising to sell much-needed oil to the Japanese. He then pulled the rug out from under the Japanese at the last minute, and they retaliated. The reason FDR did this was, if he couldn't get the US into the war in Europe, he would use a backdoor tactic by bringing the war to the United States. Provoking an enemy attack on one's own country is an act of treason.
  • Yes. *** It WAS justified. Its use saved at least tens of thousands of American lives, more likely in the hundreds of thousands, and ended the Pacific War at least several months earlier than would otherwise have happened. (Note: there are several additional considerations.) *** It WAS inhuman. Although the bombs were dropped on manufacturing cities, like the carpet bombing of German manufacturing cities, with the intent to stall continued manufacture of military equipment, it was recognized beforehand that lots of civilian casualties would occur. Note that if lots of civilian casualties did NOT occur that the manufacturing would be resumed remarkably quickly, as happened several times in Germany. Before the policy of carpet bombing, individual factories were bombed. Typically within two weeks the factory was operating again at nearly the same capacity! After seeing this (air photos of rebuilt factories were taken), carpet bombing was RELUCTANTLY employed - after MUCH debate - so that a significant disruption of enemy manufacturing capabilities could be achieved. To say all of that more simply: carpet bombing INTENTIONALLY attacked both factories AND civilians, which policy resulted in the factories NOT being rebuilt quickly and NOT being restaffed quickly with experienced and knowledgeable workers. The nukes dropped on Japan had the same intent as carpet bombing in Germany, but also the even more urgent intent of forcing a quick surrender.
  • I think it was justified for the same reasons everyone else sites. People like to say that the atom bomb would have never been invented if it weren't dropped on Nagasaki an Hiroshima. I doubt that. Several countries were looking at it. German, Japan and England. It was only a matter of time.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy