Yes, both were justified

i agree that it saved american lives and ended the war quiker

At the very least this saved the lives of millions of American soldiers, at the best it saved the world. I dislike the idea that people call Truman a mass murderer because of this, what he saw was a way to end the war quickly saving American soldiers.Now I say it may have saved the world, I'm not talking about short term I'm talking long term. By using the bomb in actual war on actual people it gave people and more importantly governments a better idea of the destructive power of such a weapon. If the bombing of Japan did not take place and the power of the bomb was only displayed on tests maybe it would have been used in Korea, or the cold war. The knowledge of the costs of human life gave governments considerable hesitation before using it.

It's easy to sit comfortably in our chairs before a computer with most if not all of our need met, and judge the actions of the past. But, an honest and objective assessment of the situation in 1945 will, or it should, make us see things through the proper perspective of that time. The question should not be "why did we bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki", but "why didn't we bomb Tokyo?" War is war, is dirty, cruel, inhumane, but it;s the nature of the beast.

It saved my life.

I flip back and forth on this issue. I am appalled by the civilian loss of life. On the other hand, I see veterans almost every month who tell me their experiences and how they dreaded packing their bags to participate in the invasion of Japan. Many units in the occupation of Germany were being rotated back or being prepared to be rotated back to get ready for the invasion. Other units in the Far East were in the same position. I have not talked to a WWII veteran yet, and I have interviewed scores if not hundreds, who did not support the atomic attacks.

solidifies the fact to this day that the U.S. will not be beaten

THE FREAKIN ASSHOLES BLEW US UP FIRST!!

It was war. We needed to win. It would have cost the Allies over a million lives to invade the Japanese mainland. Moreover, if the Axis had developed the bomb first would London still be here? Would Washington?

There were two sides in WW2 the good side and the bad side, the lives of people on the good side are more valueable than people on the bad side, and the alternative to not using the nukes flew in the faces of the values held about the lives of good people.

if america wouldn't have dropped the bombs on the 2 cities than the americans would have to invade japan like they invaded europe. america had tons of poison gas ready to use, and lots of troops ready for the invasion. all they needed was the presedent to conferm the launching of the operation. the dropping of the 2 bombs saved the lives of many american soldiers.

'Japan was in the process of surrendering'. Yes, and by the end of the war, Japan was in the process of being taken over by a military coup. Throughout Hirohito's rule, he had no control over the Army. If the Atomic Bombs weren't dropped, the Japanese Army would have seen no reason to surrender as they still had millions of troops and civilians on the Japanese home island ready to fight and still had over 12,000 combat aircraft ready. Even with two Atomic Bombs dropped, half the Japanese cabinet and a lot of the military found no reason to surrender. Without the Atomic Bombs, it is very possible that the Japanese Army would take over the country and break off all diplomatic ties to America. Thus making it necessary for the Allies to invade and even more deaths to occur. In one of the largest Air Raids in the Pacific War, the USSAF attacked Toyko. Using Firebombs they killed 100,000 Japanese civilians. The reason I stat this is because the American commanders had an invasion pl... Read more

All this sounds like Joseph Goebbels dictum, Totaler krieg etc. {total war is the shortest war.) Consquently any methods are acceptable, as you can claim it shortened the war.

I think it would be wrong to judge Harry Truman by 21st century standards. At the time even Oppenheimer and Fermi couldn't agree on the level of destruction that would ultimately be wrought. And they knew little about the effects of radiation. All Truman knew was that it was a bomb. A BIG bomb to be sure.. but simply a bomb. In his eyes it was no worse than fire bombing or saturation bombing. It isn't fair to judge him by today's standards. Yes, given the knowledge of the time he was justified in using whatever means available to end the war.

How was Japan in the process of surrendering? They vowed to fight to the last man standing. We had 2 choices: drop the bombs, or invade the islands. It was predicted that 3 million Americans would die just from invading Japan. They attacked us, and we were just defending ourselves. By the way, even though they were civilian tagets, Japan had also attacked US civilians through thier biological balloons. It was also Japanese civilians who were preparing to defend themselves and fight for Japan. These bombs quickly resulted in the war ending. We were just defending ourselves. If you attack us, you must take responsibility for every action that we take against you.

I agree with the idea that this indirectly saved more lives than it cost. It put an end to a terribly bloody war that had gone on for way too long.

the dropping of both bombs brought the war to an end and saved american lives. the japanese could have saved lives if they had surrendered after we dropped the first bomb. to a lesser extent, this sent a message to other nations that we will protect the lives of our military and citizens by any means necessary.

105,000 people died in the two attacks - the vast majority of whom were civilians. How do you justify the slaughter of 100K innocent people? I understand that goal was to end the war, thus saving lives. I also understand that these horrific, real-life examples of nuclear attacks may have played a role in deterring future use of these weapons. For me it comes down to this. There need to be some things in life that are absolute. One of those things, imho, is that the pre-meditated slaughter of civilians is barbaric and wrong. In a world made up of independent, sovereign nation-states, war is inevitable, and at times, a necessary evil. But to direct military action against helpless non-participants in that war is indefensible.

Yes, both were justified. We saved hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives by using this method to quickly end the war. Imperial Japan was a very stubborn regime. If they wanted to surrender so bad why didn't they surrender after the first bomb was dropped? And it's not like we were out to totally anihilate them. We could have leveled their entire nation in a matter of a few hours if we wanted. We even sent the Emperor a film of the Trinity test to show the devastating damage that could be done before either bomb was dropped. It's Japan's own fault that they are the only nation to have the a-bomb used against them.

Come on! It is so obvious. We didn't initiate Pearl Harbor. And, do you realize how many American lives would have been lost during an invasion of Japan. The dropping of the bombs saved countless thousands of lives, both American and Japan. Sometimes, the only way to get someone's attention is to show them how strong you are, then they get the picture.

By what possible yardstick can this ever be justified? What in God's name is wrong with anyone who would even ask this question? The answer is NO!! It was a horrific crime against humanity. It opened the door to the terror of the nuclear age. It accomplished exactly NOTHING. Japan was in the process of surrendering. We may as well ask if the Holocaust was justified.