Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Were the Atomic Bombs Really Necessary?

Forums > Community > Politics

~organizationXIIIfan1 Aug 11, 2012 Hobbyist Traditional Artist

I recently watched the ending of a docudrama on this, called Hiroshima and it got me wondering about this. It was so sad to see all the destruction and death; I was tearing up.

I believe that not only were the not necessary but unethical. I can't believe what the US did to Japan. D: (I'm Canadian BTW.) So, what is your opinion on the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were they really necessary?

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

*seth2012chaos Sep 27, 2012 Hobbyist General Artist

They weren't necessary, the test of it's power was on the other hand and they couldn't test it on New York

~Morkriegare Sep 19, 2012

Necessary, no not really. I mean the United States would have continued the war and we would have landed and both sides would have fought tooth & nail. We can't be sure which would have cost more human lives. However the use of the atomic bombs so early in their creation allowed us to learn a valuable lesson on how dangerous and horrifying these weapons are. Assuming we had never learned that lesson, imagine the first bombs being dropped were much more powerful the cost of that lesson would be far more severe.

They weren't necessary but I'm glad we learned our first lesson before the cost of that lesson was exponentially higher.

~Mouselemur Sep 10, 2012 Hobbyist Photographer

First off, I'm Dutch, so the things we're told in school might differ.
I get why the Americans wanted to hurt the Japanese the way they had been hurt in the attack on Pearl Harbor. So they dropped one of their new bombs (more surprising then attacking the Japanese the same way they had). Destruction and fatalities fell all around, and it made a massive impact, not only on and in Japan, but all over the world I suppose.
The dropping of the second bomb, though, was wholly unneccessary. It certainly showed how two slightly different bombs could diminish two different city very much alike in density, but that's all it did.
And then the Japanese immigrants living in the US, some even second or third generation already, were put into camps because of what their ancestral country had done to the US.
Living in the Netherlands, where camps were around too during WWII, I think that was a wrong move, and just as unethical as the bombing.

~SherbertTCat Sep 10, 2012 Hobbyist Digital Artist

You weren't taught the whole picture then.
We were going to stop at one bomb, but the Japanese emperor, and I'm paraphrasing here, said "Is that all you got?".

~Mouselemur Sep 10, 2012 Hobbyist Photographer

Then again, that's the whole difference in what citizens of the countries involved, are taught.
And it sounds kind of petty to react on a clear provocation like "is that all you got". War often seems to be about besting one another.

~SherbertTCat Sep 10, 2012 Hobbyist Digital Artist

Both parties were in the wrong.
Truman shouldn't have bombed civilian targets, especially using a material that we knew oh-so-little about, and Hirohito shouldn't have dared us to bomb them again.

~Ferres Sep 9, 2012

May not have been necessary but it was effective.

~Haupia Sep 8, 2012 Student Photographer

I can't believe what my ethnicity did to other ethnic groups, including another ethnic group that I am.

Humans are ... just, ugh. Disgusting. And for the most part, I do not think they were necessary, especially with the amount of innocent people killed because of it.

War is always horrendous. Always.

Flagged as Spam

~GrowlingCat Sep 7, 2012

No they were not necessary.
War is never necessary.

Details

Statistics

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Were the Atomic Bombs Really Necessary?

Devious Comments

The Journal Portal

Polls

What is your preferred drawing software?

deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]

Keep in Touch!

Deviousness

Add Media

Style