Was it moral to drop two atomic bombs on Japan?

It was either the bomb or an invasion that would have taken months, more money and more lifes. Plus Japan's government and military didn't want to surrender. In a way, it was the only possible solution. I'm not pro-war or in favor of the creation or use of these bombs and I know a lot of innocent people died because of this sad event but in this case it was necessary to end the war in the Pacific.

As much as I don't like to admit it I think it was the only way. I probably won't have be here, because my dad would have been in the invasion.

the real question isn't whether it was moral, but if it was necessary.

Dropping the bomb was a necessary decision to end a war that would have dragged on with millions more killed or wounded. And regarding civilian casualties, there were heavy civilian casualties in all the bombing campaigns of the war. Any amount of conventional bombing to "finish off" the Japanese resistance would have resulted in more casualties - military and civilian. There was no way to end the war without having lots of casualties on both sides. The atomic bomb minimized casualties for both sides.

That's not exactly an easy equation. And it shouldn't be. Children running around in the streets trying to survive after their parents were consumed in atomic fire, only to die from radiation poisoning themselves.

Does the math bear our that dropping the bombs lowered the death toll in the end? Maybe. But I find it somewhat deplorable to do math with the lives of innocent children.

By that time there had been 100's of thousands of civilian casualties all over asia, and mostly by the hands of Japanese but of course you knew that. Civilians were men, women and children. If we would have had to make the landings some think there would have been at least a million civilian casualties not counting all the military on both sides.

It's people, not algebra. Maybe consuming men, women and children in atomic fire and condemning others to cancer and radiation poisoning was the better option in a purely mathematical sense.

But can't you see why doing that is difficult to so casually call morally "right"?

we were at war with an enemy that attacked us first. we warned them this was coming and they still chose to continue the war.

the japs had all but surrendered. Conventional bombing would still have finished it.

there is nothing moral about killing. im sure they did what they felt they needed to do... but that still doesnt make it morally right.

Since when does war have anything to do with morals. Its either political or territorial gain

Most things done in war are not moral, they are what has to be done.

Was it moral to attack Pearl Harbor? Was it morale for the Japanese to butcher Nan King residents, was it moral the way the Japanese treated POW's? Would it have beem moral for the President to send thousands of young marines to their death just because of the Japanese Sumari code - no surrender? The president had to pick a lesser of two evils.He was right to choose the bomb. Let them who started it die for their country!

The two bombs killed less people than he fire bombing of Tokyo and it showed Japan that we had the ability to destroy them if we choose. The bombs convinced them to surrender, that kept us from having to attack the Japanese mainland which would have probably killed millions before it was through.

In the end it may have saved countless lives both civilian & japanese military (american also) !! The war ended faster, brought an end to the rule of the "emporer" It brought Japan into the international arena along WITH THE U.S. as a major world power !!

Truman dropped the bombs as a demonstration to the Russians who were were in Eastern Germany and eyeing the rest of Europe w/ evil intent. It had nothing to do w/ Japan, which was already beaten.

you are right !! IT WAS A "SMALL" THING TO DO !!!!!!!!!

But Soviets were fighting in the Pacific as well. Showing off was just an unofficial reason but there were others as well. Japan didn't want to surrender. It was against their values, morals and culture. They were willing to keep fighting till the end, no matter who many lives they kept losing. Dropping the bombs prevent an invasion and even more lives not only from Japanese citizens but for the Allies troops in the Pacific as well.

yes it saved many many lives and kept the Japanese from invading America

If he wanted to save many lives, he would have shot Everett Bush, who sold armor plate and other steel to Hitler and prolonged the war for as long as Hitler had money to buy it.

No it was not Moral, But War is not Moral. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki saved millions of dollars and thousands of Allied lives. I regret that it had to happen.

I wish there was an "I don't know" option.

The problem with this question is that the idea of what is moral or not is rather situational.

It ended the war, and saved countless American lives.

very intelligent post.

CLOWN

If you find anything about the subject humorous, you have more problems than a whole tiny car full of clowns.

No brainer, war isn't moral regardless.

payback is a bitch

War by definition is immoral. It is the planned killing of human life. Thus anything is fair game there are no rules screw the Geneva convention it's meaningless there is no such thing as a war crime. War by definition is crime unleashed

The japanese, unlike us today, had a sense of honor. They would of fought to the last man, far worse then what we are seeing in the middle east today. Also dropping the bomb showed it's horrific power that is scaring anyone from using it today, hopefully.

They had no navy left aside from a handful of ships, their army was decimated and were not far from running out of food it would've been simple to merely bomb strategic targets conventionally until they surrendered which wouldn't have taken long as they were close to that point already. The reason the president decided to use the atomic bomb was as show a of strength and there was no excuse for a second atomic bomb. You can make all the excuses you want but fact is there are still many people with health damage due to the effects of those bombs and we killed way too many civilians including children for that to have been a "moral" choice.

first of all, I believe the two bombings did save thousands of US lives that no other way would have been able to do. Second, I have to ask if was moral of them to bomb us at Pearl Harbor killing so many when at peace. Third, was it moral for them to kell so many POW's the way they did? Men,women,children it didn't matter who they killed and in obscene ways. No, I didn't see itand didn't live during those years, but I still know about it, from family members who were fortunate enough to be survivors. As much as I oppose war, I do believe in defending yourself from agressors out to do you harm.

Hindsight is wonderful it works every time on any thing humans do.

"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."
-Eisenhower

War is not a question of morality, it's a question of national survival.

Couple of observations / reflections:

If we would have had to invade the island of Japan, the war in the Pacific theater was forecast to continue well into the 1950's, casualties (KIA and WIA) were forecast to number in the millions on the American side and to reach genocidal proportions on the Japanese side, based on experience in the island hopping campaigns of the Marines, most especially the invasion of Okinawa. The Code of Bushido would not allow surrender by the Japanese armed forces and civilian suicides would've numbered in the hundreds of thousands.
A war-weary United States would've had to bow to popular opinion and end the war through a negotiated peace rather than the stated goal of an unconditional surrender and the post war world would've been far different.
Truman was absolutely correct in his decision to use Fat Man and Little Boy to end the war.

No question on this one. Dropping the bombs saved a hell of a lot more lives and ended the war far earlier. The Japanese were brutal and there was NO love lost between them and the U.S. They were the enemy.

Was it moral for Japan to attack us at Pearl Harber?

My dad was in the Navy during WWII and from what I understand the air force flew over the cities for 10 days dropping leaflets telling them when the bombs would be dropped and to please leave the area.prior to the bomb drop. The wanted to save as many people as posible from the radiation damage.

They did the same thing in Germany. Then bombed the city next to it where the civilians had run to escape.