No, there is no excuse for the use of nuclear weapons. Everyone tells us we must not let some countrys have them because of what they might do, but only one country has ever fired one in anger and they still have them :-(

Hi stay- Absolutely not. I oppose nuclear weaponry. There is evidence Japan was in process of surrendering and US dropped bombs to send message to U.S.S.R.

No I dont. The use of such weapons is not justified. A thermonuclear weapon recreates the temperatures inside the sun at Ground Zero momentarily. The resultant thermal pulse can flay flesh down to the bone, causing 4th and 5th degree burns, leaving people to die in agonizing ways. The radiation pollutes the environment and causes cancers. These weapons should never have been made. If we think we can sort out our differences with these weapons we are deluded. A full scale nuclear war will claim millions of lives, irradiate the planet and set back human evolution for millenia.

No, I do not.

I believe that those who sanctioned it wrestled greatly with their consciences and intellect before doing so. I cannot imagine being in that circumstance where I would be the sole arbitrator of the correctness of going ahead with it or not,,,,nor am I willing to judge those who did through a process of hindsight. I would, however, agree that it should NEVER happen again - we have the knowledge of the consequences of such an act now and that makes all the difference..

No, I think it was reckless, unnecessary and short-sighted. The guaranteed high levels of total destruction it caused were totally foreseeable, and to commit an act like that seems to me as morally reprehensible as the Nazi-led Holocaust that began the war in the first place.

Yes. Sorry. More people were killed in a bombing raid in Dresden Germany in 1945 then Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

ok imagine this, the usa didnt use the abomb, what then? an invasion? millions die because japan was a nation at war, truman gets bad publicity for such high casualties, and there are historians who will say that americans were suffering 1:1 loses as they drew closer to the japanese home islands. so truman announces that they had a great weapon that could have sent a nation into submission, what happens then? he gets blamed for launching an invasion rather than using the abomb. this historiography/historical debate is simply going to be biased with no answer, you analyse both possibilities, and you understand it was something that seemed logical, to analyse it and say its bad in retrospect is anachronistic i can understand the decision to bomb japan, but im not going to make a moralistic judgment in hindsight, however war in general is just stupid

Do you agree with the bombing of Pearl Harbor when we were a neutral nation? That was retaliation and I think they deserved what they got period....;)

Whether I agree with it isn't really an issue. It happened before I was born. I disagree with it insofar as Japan was already engaged in talks aimed at ending the war, but I agree with it insofar as it demonstrated to the world the existence of the weapon and the ability to deploy it. This may well have ensured that the Cold War never became a real war.

In the WWII Pacific theatre, Japan had approximately 2 million military deaths and America another 106,000. In the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 210,000 people were killed. I might point out that an additional 180,000 civilians were killed as a result of conventional bombing; which was sure to continue. The population of Japan at this time was 71 million people with a military strength of over 8 million soldiers and airman. Despite the great loss of civilian lives caused by the nuclear bombing of these cities, it did result in ending the war which if it continued would have caused a much higher death rate than resulted.

Yes. It may sound bad to us, looking back, but when you consider it from that time and the circumstances, it was the best way to quickly end a war that otherwise would have continued on and on and taken many more lives. This point comes through clearly from watching all the World War II documentaries -- unlike the Germans, the Japanese simply would not surrender and were so determined to keep fighting even when they had no real weapons left. A documentary I recently watched mentioned again the horrible incidents, around the summer of 1944 on one island (Saipan I think), when the U.S. troops watched, helplessly, trying to stop the senselessness in which the Japanese military even killed a thousand of their own civilians and/or forced them to commit suicide by jumping off the cliffs into the ocean. The highest generals in the military understood what was at stake by August of 1945, and were already preparing for a ground-troop invasion by September -- and considering the past experiences on each of the islands (as well as the difficulties in Normandy, another ground invasion) they knew what was ahead and reasonably expected many more millions of lives lost. Consider also that the Japanese had a few days in between the two bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; one city wasn't enough for the Japanese, and it was still several days after both cities were bombed before they finally surrendered. Also consider the treatment of the American POWs, as well as American civilians in similar camps, by the Japanese, who came from a pagan, non-Christian warrior society that truly did not value human life, and so horribly treated those who surrendered to them. Again, they were culturally different than the Germans, who at least understood the concept of surrender in a hopeless situation -- and who treated their American and British POWs far better and at least gave some attention to the Geneva convention regarding treatment of such prisoners. So many want to remember how we harmed them at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but what about the countless lives lost during the Bataan death march, and the inhumane conditions and deaths of American civilians in the Japanese camps.

Never.Absolutely not.

No, war is never the answer. The American's hated the Japanese for the attack on Pearl Harbour and in flicking the most pain on a relentless army was in their eyes justified. If they had dropped the bomb ten miles off the coast and said expect the next one downtown, I think the Japanese would have got the message.

Well i was raised by my grandfather who was born in 1917 and there were 53 years between us so my point of view is strongly influenced by that mind set, yes he and his younger brother went overseas and both fought for our freedom, and my grandfathers take on the war is that if the fighting continued the way it was island hoping all the way to the home island of japan,that the causulaties that were to be taken in order to win the war would have been to great and the means would not have satisfied the end, yes we had air suppremecy and we had more ships, but we would not have the means to sustain a newly fought for world order,we would not be the super power we are right now. and only a vicorious nation can debate such attrocites in retrospect there would be if only and we should have used it when we could. there were more people killed by the tokyo fire bombing that both atomic bombs why is that not debated? I'am not for war but it was rammed into my brain that war is hell and you want to fight one hell of a war so you never have to ever do it again. and thats what my granpa told me so i dont know i kinda belive in the no war thing.

The Japanese war machine was a violent and stubborn serpent, nuclear Warfare rendered the head from the snake and prevented more casualties in the long term. Australian Soldiers have horrific tales of Japanese Cruelty so in my Opinion after pearl Harbor and an intimidating Ultimatum, Japans Refusal to Surrender was dealt with accordingly.

Doesn't matter whether I agree or not - it happened over 60 years ago...my opinion won't change it.

no way. go to hiroshima and visit the museum there. once you see the pain inflicted on innocents, you could never agree.

i agree that blowing up stuff is cool!

No, I don't, I can't possibly agree with the loss of innocent lives.

The allies had brokered an agreement with the Soviet Union for them to enter the war by invading Manchuria in Mid-August of 1945. Following negociation failures with Stalin covinced the allies that the Soviets would keep any occupied territory they re-took and though we will never know, The allies became desperate to end the war with Japan before the Soviets entered the war. Was it right or wrong depends on how well you realise the all out brutality that all Japanese willingly imposed on their enemies civilian and military. Picture if you can a film reel showing Japanese soldiers in the Phillpines throwing infants up in the air and catching them on their bayonets and laughing and chearing.

Absolutely 100%. You have no idea of the political environment of the Jappanese in 1945. The US demand for unconditional surrender was not to be adopted by Tojo or Hirohito. The atomic bomb was horrfic. So was the firebombing of almost every Jappanese city in 1945. The only problem was that we (The USA) possessed a weapon to end the war without the destruction of an entire ancient culture; that despite thousands of casualties actually saved MILLIONS of casualties which would meant that many of you would never have been born. Jappanese children as young as five were trained to kill invading Americans. History teaches friends, and it still does. Nuclear weapons have not been used since. Never try to belay today's ideals onto yesterdays events. Kiss your Dad and your Grandpa if you have one. I don't care how much you disagree with me, but the world's ultimate destcruction device saved the lives, the historys, the lagacys of MILLIONS of people. Those that disagree should have been on those ships destroyed by Kamikazi's. Those that disageed should have served in Europe, only to be sent to invade Jappan with an estimated MILLION casualties. Those that disaagree should wonder who in their family tree in those MILLIONS would have eliminated you. They brought the war to us. The greatest heros on this earth ended it from the Marine on Tarawa to President Truman. I postulate myself to them and thank God they did what they did; because it was THEM!

No I don't, no country for whatever reason has the right to burn people alive. Regards.

Yes. The combined death toll for both Hiroshima and Nagisaki : 170 000 Predicted death toll for an invasion of the Japanese home islands : >1 000 000 Nuclear weapons are an option that should ALWAYS be avoided, but Truman in 1945 had no other options. On a more cynnnical note, the Mannhatton project cost $2 billion, so wasting that amount of money was not a good idea if the US taxpayer found out about it. So yes, I agree with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but such an event should never, never happen again. Eagle six, out.

Yes, I do. See my comments here: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/3363777 If you have any questions or additional insights, I welcome them.

I think without it, we would have had a lot more problems. It's sad so many innocent people had to die, but its what stopped the war and saved more lives in the long run.

I agree with dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. The US needed to end the war. It saved thousands of US lives. Remember who started the war. However, I think that we should have waited to find out how bad the devastation was before dropping the second bomb. Hopefully no one will ever have to drop another one...unless they threaten another country with it themselves....such as Iran vs Isreal. Then a pre-emptive strike is in order.

If you believe that the bombings saved countless Allies lives than yes. If you believe it was fare retaliation after Pearl Harbor than yes. However, if you believe that murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians just because they were the enemy, thn I believe it was wrong. Have you noticed how many Japanese are so self-rightous about no use of nuclear weapons ever again. One has to wonder how they would feel if it had been Japan who had won the race to develop the bomb and had used it on America.

YES Here are the facts which support my conclusion. 1.The US and allies needed to make Japan surrender. Otherwise, there would have been a second Pacific war within 20 years. 2.Japan was totally controlled by the generals and admirals of the army and navy. 3. The emperor who theoretically was a God and had supreme power was more of a figure head. 4. The effect of dropping the first atomic bomb was zero. The Japanese military leaders felt it would be preferable to suffer any destruction prior to the necessary American invasion of Japan. The Japanese military leaders were very confident once the US and it's allies invaded the main islands of Japan, they would inflict such horrendous casaulties on the Americans that Japan would not have to surrender and an armistice would be worked out. The Japanese had saved 6000 planes with the necessary amount of fuel to use in kamakaze attacks on US landing craft when operation Olympic (invasion of Japan)commenced. Even after the second atom bomb was dropped the military leaders were unnanimous in their desire to continue the war. It was only then that Emperor Horohito spoke up and demanded an end to the war. Anyone would think when a God demanded something it would be obeyed. Not in Japan. Some of the military attempted a coup which would keep the emperor captive and unable to communicate his desire to end the war to the entire Japanese nation. The coup leaders held Horohito captive and almost succeeded,but eventually gave up. The next day a recording of Horohito (the voice of the Crane) was broadcasted throughout Japan asking all her armed forces to lay down their weapons and accept defeat.

Eventually someone else was going to get the bomb. So better show the whole world (the soviets basically) how the United States had this capability and stuff and that they had the will to use it.

absolutely. first bomb was needed to get the attention, the second one was to prove that we have more then one and not messing around. the war was over 15 minutes after the second nuclear bomb

No. Please read "Hiroshima" by John Hersey if you have a chance. We as Americans are currently engaged in a war in Iraq. Just like you and me, we have families, we go to work or school or both or neither; many of us have lives that don't have anything "directly" to do with what's happening in Iraq. Think about an A-bomb dropping on New Orleans or New York City or Houston right now, and the tens of thousands of people including yourself, who would have to WATCH YOUR OWN SKIN SLIDE OFF YOUR BODIES, WATCH YOUR BABIES BURN, WATCH YOUR LOVED ONES' FACES MELT OFF THEIR HEADS. Think about the HORROR and INHUMANITY of that, just for a moment, and then ask why we would do that to CIVILIAN cities.

The problem most people here are having is you're trying to look at it from a modern day perspective. At the time had the US not dropped the bomb they would have done a ground invasion with traditional bombing campaigns. By many estimates this would have extended the war possibly to 1950. Casualty estimates including civilains would have been in the millions plus in most people's eyes the Japanese excused themselves from mercy for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Was it the right decision at the time? Yes. While it is harsh you must realize that is the way wars were fought at the time. Collateral damage was seen as an unavoidable consequence.

I agree with taking the chance. By 'chance' I mean to say that we (the U.S.) had no CERTAIN idea as to whether the bombings would garuntee Japan's surrender, nor did we know for sure that an invasion would take at least a year and cost millions of lives. It's easy to be living long after the event....enjoying the fruits of it....and look back to criticize whichever choice was made. The Japanese gambled on one knockout punch at pearl harbor, and lost. We gambled on a knockout at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and won. I agree with Jonboy60, that those who think the bomb was the wrong choice should back up their conviction by being a soldier in the U.S. army that would have to invade Japan (or better yet, since they like Japan so much, have them be a DEFENDING soldier!), but I'm also impressed with the theory of lincoln, that if we'd dropped one offshore as a demo, mabye that would have resolved things with NO death at all.

In a certain way yes and in a certain way no. The question is difficult. Without bombing probably the war would have lasted much longer with furter massive losses at the american side, because the japanese were extremely fanatic. In order to save the lives of their own soldiers I think the US were allowed to trow these two bombs.

YES!!!! After the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor we should have rejected the armistice until the japs handed over Hirohita for execution!

Yes!!! Completly nessecery. It would take milloins of americans to take the island of japan. Japan wasnt going to surrender!!! It would rather die. That is their beliefs. The presidents job is to protect americans not others and mostly others of a nation we are at war with. Plus the dropping put america on top. With out that we wouldnt be were we are today. The Best Baby!!!

The U.S. did warn the Japanese, and they did request an unconditional surrender, and they did not listen. Plus, FDR has just passed away, and President Truman wasn't really on the "inside" of what was going on. All he knew, is that the U.S. had a weapon that could end the war tomorrow, and it would save over a million U.S. troops life. So, being a patriot, and you should always try and circumvent the loss of the American soldier, Truman ordered the bombing. So yes, I totally agree on that decision, but the bombing on Nagasaki was maybe far fetched, as that was primarily done to show the Soviets that we had this power, and were not afraid to use it. Overall I condone the use of such weapons, but in this instance, it was critical!

Fu*k no I don't! Nothing is a good enough reason to kill children and women!