Were the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified?

[buritobr]

Not an easy question.

On one side, civilian population should not be target. On the other side, a land invasion would cost a much bigger number of lives.

[TDAS04]

I get that a land invasion would have been more deadly, but the US should at least have tried dropping a single bomb on an unpopulated island first.  If that would have scared Japan into surrendering, clearly it would have been better than dropping not one but two bombs on dense civilian populations.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Events don't happen in a vacuum.

The alternative to nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to launch Operation Downfall, a land invasion of the Home Islands which, depending on the amount of civilian resistance, could have resulted in hundreds of thousands to millions of casualties. So many Purple Hearts were manufactured expecting those casualties that the Army is still using them today.  With that in mind, yes, I do believe the bombings were justified.

[PJ]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of the areas in which the difference between permissible and justified is the most clear. I agree with TDAS that bombing an uninhabited island would have been preferable to bombing two cities. Even bombing just Hiroshima would've been preferable to what was done; the Japanese government refused to surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima because they did not believe the US government when they told the Japanese that they used an atomic bomb (and can you really blame them? it would have been ridiculous to even suggest that a country had the capacity to wipe a city off the map the way Hiroshima was up to that point) and due to inadequate communication at the time, had not been given sufficient time to realize that Hiroshima had been bombed. However, quickly ending the war through usage of atomic weapons saved lives in comparison to an ongoing ground war, even though the weapons could've been utilized in a more humanitarian way. And, the usage of the atomic weapons demonstrated to the world just how dangerous they are, and in doing so, likely prevented the use of the weapons in a much more destructive way.

[Leinad]

No, they weren't. The killing of innocent people is never justified.

[DemPGH]

I've come to kind of change my mind about this - I've always advocated for a siege of the island, but frankly I have to wonder if that would have been worth it. They were simply not going to surrender (and we had already done massive damage to their military and had repeatedly bombed Japanese cities and targets), detonating an atomic weapon over an uninhabited island would have been just wasting it, and maybe in the long run using those bombs on Japan prevented future atomic war/combat because we saw what just the early prototypes did: Unprecedented destruction. An invasion of the mainland would have been too costly. So yes, I think using the bombs was justified.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I believe we will never see a state actor use a nuclear weapon again precisely because the world got to see the effects of nuclear warfare at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's devastating to think about, but a bomb has to be used at least once before nuclear deterrence can work. And in the vacuum of the war, it seems like these bombings had a lower death count than what we would have seen with a land invasion. So it's win-win, as morally perverted as that sounds.

But you've got to have that death and destruction first for the world to know that these are weapons that should never be used. A mushroom cloud on an island would not suffice.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think it was justified (as in, I can see Truman's train of thought) but not really necessary. People often forget that Japan was only just processing the devestating invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets.

Hardly the worst Allied bombing though.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Morally, of course not . But it was far better then launching Operation Downfall, blockading and starving the island, or agreeing to let them surrender conditionally not unconditionally.

[Cory]

Yes, of course they were. Every single argument against it is flawed and based largely on a lack of understanding of the circumstances of the time.

The atomic attack against Japan in 1945 saved both Allied and Japanese lives. A long siege would've have probably killed more overall from starvation and given the Soviets an opportunity to invade and take Hokkaido.

Also this idea that wasting a bomb as a "demonstration to intimidate them" is nonsense. Even after two atomic attacks against them they still barley surrendered (the vote on the high council was extremely close IIRC).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If this was justified, then I think there is really no way to credibly claim that there is any limit to what may be done in war.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So many Purple Hearts were manufactured expecting those casualties that the Army is still using them today.

Not quite.  The supply ran low enough that the Pentagon placed an order in 2000, and probably has since then as well, but the resumption of procurement back then made the news for obvious reasons.

[Leinad]

But you've got to have that death and destruction first for the world to know that these are weapons that should never be used. A mushroom cloud on an island would not suffice.

What about a military base? Or some kind of government building? Maybe I'm fringe-y on this issue because I don't think killing of innocent civilians who never explicitly consented to the war is ever morally justified, but I still think there was a better way.

[ElectionsGuy]

No, they weren't. The killing of innocent people is never justified.

Yes, this. Although under this logic war would never be justified, there's something about dropping a bomb on innocent civilians that irks me. During wartime, there's always going to be deaths of innocent civilians, but people don't go into war with the intent to harm civilian populations (unless its total war). The difference between dropping a bomb and going in with an invasion is that dropping the bomb is knowingly going to kill civilians, and to me that's the deep end of immoral.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The March 9-10 1945 bombing of Tokyo is actually the deadliest bombing raid in world history. You don't hear as much about that since it was conventional weapons.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, they weren't. The killing of innocent people is never justified.

Yes, this. Although under this logic war would never be justified, there's something about dropping a bomb on innocent civilians that irks me. During wartime, there's always going to be deaths of innocent civilians, but people don't go into war with the intent to harm civilian populations (unless its total war). The difference between dropping a bomb and going in with an invasion is that dropping the bomb is knowingly going to kill civilians, and to me that's the deep end of immoral.

I have to agree with this, though I don't think the option should be off the table if a dry-run of the atomic bombings on an underpopulated Pacific island failed to scare the Japanese into surrendering. While I oppose war, I also believe that we must win the fights that we must fight. And WWII was definitely (at least the Pacific War) one of those wars.

[/]

Not an easy question.

On one side, civilian population should not be target. On the other side, a land invasion would cost a much bigger number of lives.

Correct

[buritobr]

Good side of the nuclear weapons: no direct conflict between superpowers after 1945.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afganistan are small countries.
Israel vs. Arabs is not a conflict between superpowers too.


Before 1945
30 years war
7 years war
Napoleonic wars
Crimean war
Franco Prussian war
Two world wars

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Nuclear weapons did not cause the relative peace of postwar society.

[politicus]

Nuclear weapons did not cause the relative peace of postwar society.

Not by themselves (monocausality is for simpletons), but their existence certainly played a role in preventing a WW3.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nuclear weapons did not cause the relative peace of postwar society.

Not by themselves (monocausality is for simpletons), but their existence certainly played a role in preventing a WW3.

Yes. As poorly as this reflects on human nature, it's hard to deny that we would have seen many more wars if it wasn't for nuclear weapons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As for the OP, no, it was not morally justified, even though it might have been the least worst choice.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think - and this may be an extension of bias stemming from my political roots - the net danger from nuclear programs in regards to sabotage, accidents, errors and encouraged proliferation far outweighs the supposed benefits of "nuclear peace". The Cold War is littered with a litany of potential nuclear exchanges and accidents basically stopped by dumb luck.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think - and this may be an extension of bias stemming from my political roots - the net danger from nuclear programs in regards to sabotage, accidents, errors and encouraged proliferation far outweighs the supposed benefits of "nuclear peace".

Well, that's extremely hard to find out - and let's hope we never do.

[Velasco]

Good side of the nuclear weapons: no direct conflict between superpowers after 1945.
Korea, Vietnam (...) and Afganistan are small countries.

You can make at least two new polls with that.

1) Are proxy conflicts between superpowers morally justified?

2) Was Agent Orange morally justified?

3 (Optional) Was there a connection between Osama Bin Laden, the US and Afghanistan? Was morally justified supporting that guy?

Claiming that there was a "good side" in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... or Dresden and Tokyo for that matter... Japan was already defeated in August 1945, as it was Germany in February of that year. It was only a question of time.