What's new

Hiroshima and Nagasaki


Unswerving cyclist
14 Mar 2002
As you may have noticed on our index page we're running a poll this month entitled "Do you think that the dropping of atomic bombs onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted a U.S. war crime?"

While only 49 visitors have voted so far, it seems to be clear that the majority of voters views the employment of nuclear bombs "as necessary to end the WWII".

Found this old survey by Japan Today on a similar topic:

Did the US force Japan into WWII?

Japan Today Japan News - Pop Vox - Did the US force Japan into WWII? - Japan's Leading International News Network
The deployment of Atomic weapons against Japan, not once but twice, tells us a lot about American policy leaders' mindset, including the President at that time. It also tells us some interesting things that the official policy hasn't wavered since that time. While it is possible to view this as meaning that the decision made was completely supported by the available data, this does not seem to be the case. On the contrary, it seems more likely that revising these official positions would open up debate along lines similar to that which began this thread.

On two separate occasions, the use of the bomb gives a sour taste to the claims that the bomb was meant as a kind of "warning." That the bomb could have been used in a non-civilian area as a warning of the destructive power the American government now possessed.

The much-touted claims of "saving" up to 1,000,000 lives were completely at odds with even the most drastic military estimates when the decision was made. Estimates that the President had from his top officials ranged from around 20,000 casualties up to just under 200,000.

The Government also had concerns about Soviet entry into the war in the Pacific area, and these calculations probably went into the idea of using the bomb.

This is, of course, a huge topic and one which I have an ongoing interest in. I still have not completely resolved this issue in my own mind. However, the most upsetting thing for me is the lack of true interest (by not just American society and Government, but also that of all Allied Nations) in exploring the reasons and necessity of the bomb's use in Japan. People must remember always to question what they are told about his and their own country and others.

Oh, one other thing, my apologies for rambling on so much...
Ouch, touchy subject for most concerned.


side notes:
Japan was developing its own Atomic bomb and was willing to use them with no remorse according to the scientist working on it. Deployment was to be with hot air balloons. The Germans inadvertently stopped these plans by not supplying plutonium. <<< this was in a news article in Japan Times a few years back

The results of the first bomb were reported to the military powers in control through carrier pigeon. Unfortunately, not many in the military could believe that such a powerful weapon could exist. Most of Japan was under such brainwashing that nobody really new Japan was losing the war until the first bomb hit. Also, the navy and army were at each other's throats so much co-ordination of troops between the two was virtually impossible.

Back to topic...
I've been asked many times in Japan why the US used the bomb. Wasn't it a racist decision? Ect...

I really don't think it was pure racist, well not in as we hate Asians so let's bomb those suckers, but more likely a simplistic view of racism that Asians were just a bunch of restless natives. Also, the added benefit of scaring Russia from entering Japan was probably high in the decision reasons. Hey, there's nothing like occupying a country all by yourself and not having to divide up a large portion of the cheese for a latecomer.

I wonder how much the kamikaze scare factor also played in the decision.

Did us force Japan into WWII?
Hmmm, I heard that the US sunk a passenger liner from Japan first.

Forcing Japan into WWII sounds a little foolish since the US barely forced Japan to open its doors at the end of the Tokugawa period (about 260) years ago. So ... why later?

If anything, I believe the US let Japan bomb pearl harbour. Isn't it a bit strange that most of the fleet was out of the harbour at the time? Hey, there's nothing like hitting an American while he's not looking. I really think the US needed a reason to enter the pacific arena and pearl harbour was just a battle cry.

I have trouble with this topic since I'm born American but have parents from Germany (they immigrated to the states in the late '50s and early '60s), a stepfather in the US navy and live in Japan.

Is dropping the bombs are war crime?
Hmm... ouch that's a difficult question.
I wonder what the actual definition (such what types of acts and such) of a war crime is.
There are some really interesting and intense issues involved. Personally for me I'm beginning to lean towards the view that it was something that was initiated prematurely. If you think about it from the idea of war crimes etc. I don't think that political considerations w/regards to the Soviet Union constitute valid justification. I'm interested in this mainly because I think that American society as a whole needs to seriously evaluate this in order to prevent the use of nuclear weapons again.
Interesting question though. Would the American leaders been so quick to use a nuclear weapon against German cities?

Hmmmmmm 🙂
That's though. Bombing German would've meant bombing Jewish homes.
Although, I do believe that the thought was being considered but with the Germans shifting to the East to prevent the Russian entrance and giving way to the Americans usage would've been more difficult to prove.

Political justifications concerning Russia. Hmmm true but those times where a bit different .. don't forget the Red Hunts that went on in the States.

I really would like to see that Hiroshima peace museum be put on at the Smithsonian at least. I went there and the images of what I saw still live on in my memories. Problem is that too many Veterans probably would veto such an action. I remember watching on japanese TV a show where reporters tried to show pictures of what hideousness the bomb left behind and a lot of Veterans actually got angry and said it was all Japan's fault.

yes, this issue is very huge with lots of sides ... just hoping that such threads this could bring folks together and actually think about such consequences that war brings.

A highly controversial topic that has to be handled with great sensitivity. I remember that on some other board issues such as the atomic bombs or the "Nanjing Incident" got completely out of hand and deviated into flaming wars. Oh, I am not afraid of things escalating on our board here, hehe.

The last march our visitors opted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not constitute war crimes, nuclear attacks were necessary to end the war.

It's been a long time since uni, but I remember that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 protect innocent civilians in war zones. Just searched and found the entire document:

Difficult to conclude whether attacks like Guernica, Coventry, Dresden or Hiroshima/Nagasaki were war crimes. The Geneva Convention applies to

"persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria".


"persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Have to delve into these articles once again.

One thing is for sure, Shintemaster mentioned this aspect already, and I have included it as an option in our March poll: the bombs were meant to be a clear signal towards the Soviet Union. The cold war had already started long before WWII was over.

I am not sure whether nuclear weapons were strategically necessary because the Imperial Army was more or less annihilated after battling of Okinawa.

"Did us force Japan into WWII?"

Well, they certainly did not force Japan (there are always non-violent means of conflict resolution). Still, there obviously was something like a "strategy" that had already started in the 1920s. I was hoping you could take a look at this thread where I have outlined a few unfriendly acts.

The Western imperial powers certainly weren't too happy to allow Japan at the table of international power games, a nation they had created and that had become adolescent after the victorious conflicts in China/Korea and the Czarist defeat fleet.

I'm rambling... many aspects need to be taken into consideration. 🙂
Just mentioning it briefly...

Japan remembers Hiroshima bombing victims

=> http://www.nandotimes.com/world/story/489965p-3910691c.html

Nagasaki bombing remembered, U.S. to be condemned in speech

=> http://www.japantoday.com/e/content=news&cat=1&id=225968
Last edited:
My grandmother for many years had nightmares because of that horrible bombing idea. My mother was too young to remember much more than her mother in psychological pain.

Probably, the US baited Japan. But still the Japanese military wanted this.

Most likely but I remember back in the states and growing up. That the Japanese kamikaze were quite frightening. Wasn't their a mentality if the people of Okinawa battled so vehemetly that the mainland would be worse?
I think that asking who started the war is a moot point as, from my understanding, the conflict was probably unavoidable. You have to hungry nations extending the reach of their wealth and influence throughout the Pacific. At some point, these two would have had to come into conflict. I don't think either side would have yielded to the other. There were many historical forces behind the dynamics of WWII; it made my head spin, trying to fit together all the different angles.

As far as dropping the bombs. I believe that the US's 1,000,000 man bit did play a part in the decision. I know that it was much more than that. Dropping the bombs was a powerful symbol of the US's emergence as a superpower. Also, as much as it was meant to show the US's power to our enemies, I think it served an even more influential role as a declaration to our allies that we were in charge, that the US had become a shot caller, that Brittian and everyone else should know there place under the US.

Those are my thoughts on the matter anyway, whether it was justified or a war crime. I don't know, but what I do know is that it is never right for a person to lose their life.
Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight. It is tough to tell what is happening in the war. Look at Iraq, even with all our immediate, live, real-time info, retractions and revisions are made all the time. While we may be burdened at times by too much information, I think people on both sides in WWII had trouble due to a lack of it. In deciding to drop the bombs, the US had to look at what it had been thought on Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and others to predict how things would go if they properly invaded Japan. Why would they have thought Kyushu, Honshu, Shikoku and Hokkaido would have been any different?

I am not excusing the bombs as I have real trouble making up my mind on the issue, but I think often historians have trouble keeping what we know now about the state of Japan? Forces, drive, determination, internal politics at the time, out of our interpretations when we try and understand why the US did what they did.

As for dropping the bombs on Japan, yes, it may have been for effect on the Russians, yes, it may have been easier than dropping it on Europe, but if I recall, the bombs weren't. It finished until after Germany surrendered. Indeed, Germany et al. was just as terrible a fate and destroyed many, including Jewish (or ex-Jewish), homes in the process. It is tough, but not impossible, to play a racial card with the bombing, given the timing of WWII and the equally terrible destruction of European cities.

As for Pearl Harbor, people probably thought something would happen soon, but if it was a batted attack, why let it be so successful? Why have your sailors asleep below deck rather than suited up and ready to jump on the Archie, effectively turning a surprise into a surprise? While at the risk of being pie in the sky here, if the US had pulled a fast one at Pearl, Midway, Guam, Coral Sea, most of the Pacific War could have been shortened. Lets also not forget that the Philippines, with a strong US presence and inconveniently blocking Japanese access to Indonesian oil needed for the war machine in China and Korea, was also hit on, or on either side of, Dec. 7th in an attempt to knock the US out of the war. Why would the US knowingly expose their entire Pacific force to that?

(The carriers were out on exercises, and the Navy wasn't? Yet sold on the idea of a carrier-based strategy to worry enough to send them out of Pearl to prevent sunk in the first place intentionally. Many still saw carriers as a novel and untested idea. Indeed the Pacific War proved the age of the battleship was over. Arguably if the ships at Pearl had been out at sea waiting for the Japanese, the war would have been over, but that is speculation. Let me know if you want to play that game :) )

All that aside, I do agree with @JimBeam. It is never right to lose a life. I am also impressed by the responsible quality and tone of this discussion. Let's keep it up!
> I do beleive that the US's 1,000,000 man bit did play a part in the decision,

The Pentagon estimates at the time was more like 20,000 to 50,000. But let's face it, if they thought they could save even 10,000 American lives even if it meant killing 200,000 Japanese to do it, they certainly would. Even today I tear up when I read about my first hometown casualty in Iraq yet when I hear about hundreds of Iraqi soldiers getting "mowed down" I don't give it a second thought. Intellectually, of course, I realize it's terrible.

I tend to think that, by that point, Hiroshima was more or less necessary. Or, at least, the best option they had from an American standpoint -- that is, savings American lives and ending the war on a stronger footing against Russia.

I don't know if it's a crime but I think it's "highly regrettable" that they didn't wait another week or so before bombing Nagasaki. I think it more than likely that they would have surrendered after Hiroshima had they been given enough time.

Also, it's not really clear in my mind why the nuclear bomb was so much more horrendous than, for example, firebombing Tokyo which also targetted civilians and killed tens of thousands of people. But you never hear boo about that.
I am going to come right out and say that Yes I think the bombings were definite war crimes. There are a few things worth considering.

In a hypothetical invasion of Japan probably more people would have been killed than in the bombings, but this argument takes for granted both that an invasion was otherwise unavoidable and that a country can use any means necessary to win a war no matter how horrible.

Taking the first of these, that the only other option was an invasion, it seems clear that this may have been avoided. In the weeks prior to the bombings the Japanese government had been trying to negotiate a surrender through the then neutral Soviet Union. The US, having broken the Japanese diplomatic codes, was well aware of this fact. The Japanese main demand was that as a face saving gesture the emporer's position be guarunteed after surrender. But the stated objective of the war was unconditional surrender and Truman refused to enter negotiations with the Japanese government, even though in the end the position of the Emporer was maintained anyway. Had the US been willing to alter its war aims it possibly could have gotten a Japanese surrender without using the bombs or invading Japan, but this option was never pursued, presumably because of the desire to appear strong to the Soviet Union.

As for the argument that the bombings were the less bloody way of achieving American victory and therefore they were morally justifiable, I don't find this very compelling because of the rationalization of atrocities it involves. Lets take a hypothetical situation. Had Germany won the war, using the same logic they could have argued that their use of Jewish slave labour in munitions factories was morally justifiable because it increased their military prowess and allowed them to win a military victory quicker and less bloody than they would have otherwise. A rational person would have to conclude that this was an empty argument and the German atrocities were totally unjustifiable. I feel it is the same with the case of the use of nuclear weapons against two defenceless cities.

Of course, there are a lot of differences between the two cases. Germany chose to go to war while the war was forced on the US. Still, while the US didn't choose to go to war it did choose how it would fight it and how it would end it and I think it should be held accountable for its decisions.

The only reason the bombings aren't considered war crimes is that the US won and the victors certainly weren't going to put themselves on trial. While they will never be legally defined as war crimes, as an individual it is my opinion that they were just that.
Attacking mainland Japan would of been the most brutal and viscious battle mankind would of ever known. The debate for the ages, was it necessary to drop the bombs? Yes it was. Just the fact that Hirohito told the citizens that the war was over, never once saying japan was defeated or we have surrendered. They would of fought to the very last man, woman and child. And millions would of been lost. I do feel for the people of these cities when i watch documentaries on the bombings, and read the tales of survivors that touched me very much, but war is ugly and brutal, and lets just hope it will never be repeated again.
I am not sure why we dropped the atomic bombs. What was the reason to drop a bomb on innocent japanese citizens who also suffered under the hands of their own Imperialist Army?
I believe the U.S. had a right to counter attack Japan though after Pearl Harbor. But, I don't believe the bombs did anything for relations between the countries. It just made a bad memory.
I know that many Japanese don't even like to bring up the situation for obvious reasons. I think there is a silent majority who think it's really their ancestor's faults but not able to express it. Well, it's history , so I believe we should just look to the future as friendly nations.
Originally posted by Mandylion
As for dropping the bombs on Japan, yes it may have been for the effect on the Russians, yes, it may have been easier than dropping it on Europe, but if I recall, the bombs werenツ。テ? finished until after Germany surrendered.

Exactly! tell me if i am wrong but i also recall that the first target was Germany, but since they surrendered, the race started to get them to Japan, next on the list. Unfortunately the japanese also capitulated shortly after, maybe not under the exact conditions of the americans, but the bombs even came after that. The nuclear program management needed a way to test the bombs at all costs.
Isn't this a crucial point in the discussion whether the bombing is to be considered as a war crime? Paradoxically, the war was already over ...
Originally posted by jirzji
The nuclear program management needed a way to test the bombs at all costs.

From what I've heard (or rather read, the Swedish school teaches you that it was indeed an exaggeration but necessary to end the war), you are correct.

As far as I know, the Japanese tried to surrender a couple of times, the first attempt made in the middle of June of 45. But America refused to accept that surrender and raised the bid by saying that the emperor had to deannounce his divinity. Initially, the Japanese refused, but when American B52s were stationed less than 400km from Tokyo, and 91% of their navy was lost, they once again tried, this time through Sovjet. But the US promised that Stalin would get free hands in Manchuria, so I was to no help for the Japanese. The third attempt to capitulation (of which I have heard at least) was again directly to the US government, who responded by demanding a total and unconditional capitulation of Japan (I don't know the English name for that, so I translated it directly from Swedish) meaning that the emperor would be imprisoned in the US. The Japanese government could end accept such a demand, not because that we're too proud, though. In fact, at that point, over 50% of the government had voted for an immediate stop to the war at all reasonable costs. The problem was that they knew that the soldiers would keep on fighting if such a thing would happen.

The US had (according to Harry S Truman's diaries) decided to use two A-bombs in April of that year, the reasons being: 1. To scare the **** out of anyone with plans of assaulting the US (Sovjet). 2. Test the weapon ON REAL PEOPLE. There wasn't another way to really find out what the radiation damages were like 45% of the Hiroshima bomb's energy and about 50 % of the Nagasaki bomb was immediately transformed into radiation. Furthermore, Hiroshima had many wooden houses. It was/is situated in a valley which allowed the shockwave to echo. I won't get into that since it's kind of -off-topic. They had to use two bombs since they had two models, the uranium and the plutonium, so Nagasaki had to be the experiment's subject. 3. The cost of the atomic bomb program amounted to 16 % of the defence budget. That hole in the budget needed an explanation, and there was only one explanation to be found, and only one thing for those responsible for the project to do was to use it.

These were the main reasons, or rather the main way of thinking (as far as I know at least). They knew that it wasn't a matter of avoiding causalities at an eventual invasion. The estimated number of American casualties was predicted to be somewhere between 25 000 - 63 000, in the best/worst case. The number 250 000 was made up, and commented by "a quarter-million sounds good, doesn't it."

The days before the news about the bombs reached the Americans, pictures of American war prisoners in Japan were shown to make sure that people were very anti-Japan when the news reached them.

Since I wrote this much, I feel like there should be some conclusion at the end or something, but I'm too tired to think of one, and the lack of sleep is starting to affect my English big time so I'll call it a night here. If you read this far, you probably feel the same way too.
I'm too tired to write another reply to another post. I discussed why surrender was not an option in 1945 for the Japanese in another thread. Read it if you want another view. Japan was nowhere near surrendering in July. The atom bomb changed that. And atom bombs could be accurately tested... they used Pigs in Alomagoro and the later Bikini tests. Truman Hated Russians didn't trust them but couldn't stop the Manchuria campaign even if he protested.

There is absolutely no arguing the fact that these atrocities were war crimes because the main targets were civilian cities filled with women and children not military personnel. Yes the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor but that was a military target. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was essentially 9/11 times 100. To clarify, if the US would have dropped the bombs on m-i-l-i-t-a-r-y targets it would be different but they dropped them on c-i-v-i-l-i-a-n cities which makes these inhumane slaughters nothing more than cowardly terroristic acts and two of the darkest days in American history.
making the soviets more managable

There's a book out that I attempted to read on the topic titled "Atomic Diplomacy Hiroshima and Potsdam" by Gar Alperovitz. It was kind of tuff and I only got through the intros and into the first chapter before another book came along. But I'm pretty sure the gist of the book was that the bombings were to "make the Soviets easier to handle" in the post-war world. The US did not want the Russians to invade Japan and thus have to share the occupation with them. Truman was able to 'play his hand' stronger at the Potsdam conference since the atomic bombs were in working condition by this time.

The Hiroshima atomic bomb website lists 3 reasons for the use of the bomb. The above, "making the Soviets more managable", was not one of them. Hiroshima's site, in my opinion, is very diplomatic.

I mention the above book and comments to some hard-core republicans/conservatives here in the states and they immediately denounce it as historic revisionism. I try to tell them that they author relied on the official record and even gov officials' diaries to come to the conclusion he does. A conclusion he did not set out to prove, the author writes in the into. Government officials have always told the public one thing and reasonings are not always as they are stated to be. So in a way it is a reworking of history as new information is made available to us.

peace out yo. haha.
no more hiroshimas.
Did they have to be used? No.
But you must look at it as a balance, If we do not use them, this will happen, if we do, this will happen.

The fact is it was better for US to use them and honestly the fact that we did use them has changed the face of war from that point on. The fact that the weapon is so powerfull that they shrugged off the first bomb saying that isn't possiable ect goes to show its power.

I am sure that if we had not used them the war would of raged on for ALOT longer, if you added 5 more years to the war, what would the world be like today? The fact is if it had only lasted 1 year longer I would not be here to post this because my father most likely would of died. He was on a ship in route to japan when the 2nd bomb droped.

As for it being a war crime. I personaly think that they can have no true crime in war because war its self is a crime. You can only have morals in war. Is it moral to kill 1 million random people most of which are not military personal of you'r enemy to show them you have this weapon and are not scared to use it, To save you'r side 1-2 million lives, billions of dollers and all the other costs of the war?

If I was the pres at the time, I would of done the same thing. though insted I might of droped the first one on a large Mt. Or some land mark in a lower populated area.

Needless to say the fact is that any nation fighting a current super power will stand no chance in this era. With the new nuclear weapons out being 100-150X more powerfull then the bombs we droped at that time it would be pointless.

Now nuclear weapons are used as more of a deterant then a weapon. A great general once said "One day a weapon so destructive, so powerfull will come along that the devastation and pain it will cause will be so horrible that man will no longer have wars for fear of it being used" needless to say I think he was pretty much right, We will not see any more massive world wars and if we do it would be the dawn of civilization.

Also many of the reasons kiwano gave are right. The president knew no one would think a weapon like this was real unless they showed it was.

And yes the weapons were droped very LOW thus they created MASSIVE radiation, Now most nuclear weapons are detonated allmost a half mile above ground, causeing a larger shock wave effect with less rads at ground 0 "Where everything dies due to the heat / shock wave / lack of air due to all the stuff burning up so fast." and the rads being moved bye air to create even more problems where they land.

Any ways, The past is the past. Learn from it. I am sure we did and I do not forsee us useing any nuclear weapons any time soon and I don't think japan will eaither.

North korea I don't know about though.... That is a very bad situation that keeps getting worse.
Here's two things that I've heard argued about the dropping of the bombs:

1. Japan wouldn't have surrendered otherwise.

I don't know how accurate/inaccurate this is, but I've also heard that Japan was already crippled to the point where an invasion would have also been overkill. In other words, they may have already been on the verge of surrender. For example; Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya all received extremely heavy damage from firebombing. In fact, the death toll in Tokyo, I believe, was more than the death toll in Hiroshima.

But, then again! I've also read (fabricated?) articles about Japan's plan to send kamakazis to San Francisco, fully loaded with viles of the bubonic plauge. This was supposively to happen in late September. Did America actually know about this before they dropped the bombs?

Personally, I don't think so. As I said, "fabricated?" ???

2. Test (especially Nagasaki).

Well, how can you explain Nagasaki? Yet others will argue that it was neccessary to end the war before Russia also moved in. But I don't even think there was time to fathom what was happening in that short time. You have Hiroshima on Aug. 6th, Russia declared war on Japan on Aug. 8th (90 days after Germany surrendered), then Nagasaki was bombed on Aug. 9th. So, is there really a valid explaination? Well, Russia had only started to attack Japanese troops in Manchuria and they had plans to also invade the northern islands of Japan (including Hokkaido). Then the very next morning Nagasaki was bombed. No offical negotiation after Hiroshima was bombed, infact I believe that Hirohito barely got word of Hiroshima's devisation before Nagasaki was bombed. So what would you call it?

It was a TEST!

Well, anyway... These are bits a pieces of Japanese history in the way I interpreted them.
Last edited:
Some facts:

Two separate estimates exist to rate the number of American casualties that would result from such an invasion. A joint war plans committee comprised of the army and navy came to the conclusion that 46,000 Americans would die in an invasion of Kyushu and later Honshu. The number of American wounded averaged three to one during the later years of the war, so according to this estimate, 175,000 American casualties were not out of the question. However, these figures were based on such tentative intelligence that George Marshall, the armys chief of staff, bluntly rejected them.

A second estimate proposed by Admiral Leahy was much higher. The invasion of Iwo Jima caused 6,200 American deaths, and the U. S. outnumbered the Japanese by four to one. Okinawa cost 13,000 U. S. servicemen, and they outnumbered the Japanese by two and one-half to one. These 13,000 men made up more than 35% of the U. S. landing force. Consequently, Admiral Leahy came to the conclusion that it was absurd to think that any less than 35% of the American force that invaded Japan would be killed. Based on the estimate of 560,000 Japanese soldiers on Kyushu as of early August, Leahy predicted that at very minimum over 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands.

It was later found that the troop strength on Kyushu was greatly under-estimated, and that by August 6 the Japanese had over 900,000 men stationed on Kyushu, nearly twice as many as thought. Leahys estimates that the Americans would have a preponderance, when in fact the 767,000 American soldiers who would comprise the landing force were already greatly outnumbered three months before Operation Olympic was actually to begin. By November, Japanese troop strength could easily double or triple, making between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths conceivable.

These numbers do not even begin to account for the Japanese dead. In Okinawa, twice as many Japanese were killed as Americans. It is therefore plausible that between 100,000 (according to the earliest estimate) and two million soldiers would die in an invasion. This number does not include Japanese civilians dead, which could conceivably have been even higher than the number of dead soldiers.


I believe someone begged the question, "Would the US have been so quick to drop the atomic bomb on Germany?" That answer would be yes. The bomb was being worked on by many Jewish scientists for that very purpose; thing is, Germany surrendered before the Manhattan Project was completed.

Try this essay as well: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Bethe
I owuld like to say yes it is A war crime, true warriros would not drop bombs on civilians, true the Japanese ARMY employed tatics that are equally ugly such as use of black plague on chinese civilians, but for America to show justice by using the eye for an eye method is horrible. children burned to thier mothers backs, faces gone, eyes melted, people vanished into dust!!!

How can A man authorize this then call himself human!

and the worse thing was that it was done twice and even considered being done in the korean war!

Revenge is not justice.

I htink America should learn alot from its mistakes true without one stong dominate power war would be more large scale but the use of weopons on civilians is unnecssary!.

I only wish we lived in the days of swords and spears, at leats those soldiers were not commanded to kill children and mothers.

Japan was not america's enimy, and america was not japan's enemy it is war that is our enemy but we are but men and incapable of escaping war so let us try not to give in to it as bad as we have.

A great movie to watch on hiroshima is "hiroshima" it stars that guy from karate kid
I think intentionally targeting civilians is not a valid way to achieve a military/political goal, period. The ends don't justify the means, it matters how you go about achieving your goals.
I just wonder if the U.S. would have dropped the A-bomb on Germany had the U.S. had it ready before Germany had surrendered.

No Way !
Top Bottom