During the war with Japan, the US had already showed the power and range of the B bomber, which were responsible among other things for the fire bombings of Tokyo on March 10th, which killed overcivilians. Their involvement in war rarely extends so far.
The first factor was the desire to save American lives, the second was revenge for the humiliation caused by the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the third was to demonstrate and warn the Soviet Union of the power of the US military.
President Harry Truman was. Japanese pilots took to the skies with mounted machine guns on bomber planes and thousands of pounds of explosives, and bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, Therefore, I encourage you to leave your comments, either in support or against what I have said, below.
However, then you seem to indicate that you do not regard an attack on civilians, regardless of the extent they are involved in the war effort, to be any different than an attack on military.
Other options were indefinite blockade and bombing, and outright invasion—but at what cost? The Japanese government declared they would ignore it altogether. Weapons of mass destruction are banned for similar reasons.
The United States was justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima due to the unwarned attack on civilians and docked naval ships at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.
If the Japanese chose not to surrender - even after being told about the bomb and seeing its destructive power - then and only then would I have authorized its use on a Japanese city. Halliday, a former member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, community college teacher and a curator at the Canadian War Museum, has written, co-authored or compiled numerous articles and books on general Canadian history and the military.
It seems to be a matter of personal philosophy. MacArthur did not weigh the fate ofAllied PoWs, much less potential enemy civilian casualties, but the Battle of Manila—February with more thanFilipinos dead—is instructive as to the horrors of urban warfare.
If that is so, then yes, you believe the ends justify the means. Efforts begun in the s gained traction in the s when members of the League of Nations signed and brought into effect the Geneva Protocol, which banned the use in war of chemical weapons. I guess it depends on whether you value the victory or integrity of the nation more.
Of course, saving Japanese lives was never really the goal of the bombs, but it has been used as a justification ever since.
Use of the atomic bomb was justifiable. You should visit the memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in person if you live or plan on visiting Japan. Especially if you knew he had no reason to cut it down except for the sake of doing so, he just does.
It may even have saved Japanese lives, but this depends on how long Japanese forces would have continued fighting once the Americans invaded. For example, not only was it on our ground, it was unprovoked and unwarned.
In the end, revenge is not a legitimate justification for a decision-whether in times of peace or war. For centuries there have been generally agreed principles on when a war is just and how that war can be fought. Legion Magazine is published by Canvet Publications Ltd. The United States was justified due to the unprovoked attack and bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, which occurred three years prior to the bombing of Hiroshima, it was necessary to stop the war because it saved thousands of American lives.The United States dropped two atomic bombs—nicknamed Fat Man and Little Boy—on Japan in Augustresulting in the deaths and injury of more thanpeople.
Was that action justified to bring the war to an end? Policy analyst John Siebert of Waterloo, Ont., says NO.
Author Hugh A. Halliday of Ottawa says YES. The United States was justified in dropping an atomic bomb on Japan's, Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War because it was beneficial to the U.S, retaliation and end the war faster.
Prior to Attack - There was the the Manhattan Project.
Before the outbreak of the war, a group of. United states was justified in dropping the atomic bomb because of several reasons. Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor that killed many Americans, Japan didn't look like they were going to surrender any time soon. Was the United States justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?
On August 6,the United States became the first country to ever use the atomic bomb in warfare. On this day, the first of the two atomic bombs were dropped. The first was known as "Little Boy" and was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. The US was justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Japan already killed over 2, people in the Pearl Harbor bombings. We had done nothing to provoke them, unless you count our cutting off trade with Japan, limiting their oil supply.
The United States was justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima due to the unwarned attack on civilians and docked naval ships at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. For example, the bomb displayed the power the U.S wielded when they dropped it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Download