The American Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Comments

Well written.

Just offering another thought here. :) While many people say that nuclear bombs are horrible weapons, they can be used peacefully. In the time we bombed Japan, the U.S. was the only country with completed nuclear arms. Now, there's no counting how many countries possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence has kept us safe and one hasn't been dropped since 1945. Like the quotes say, nuclear weapons also allowed states to be silent yet carry the largest stick. And while it's horrible how many people died due to nulcear bombs (and radiation), it's barely a fraction of how many people were killed in world war 2. If the war had continued, those numbers (both American AND Japense loses) only would've risen. So perhaps they aren't entirely a bad thing. :)

I'm really impressed that this article managed to stay fairly neutral. Good job. :) We had a debate (NFL) topic about state's possession of nuclear weapons about a year ago and this brought back much of what I learned on the topic. :)

To [b]asteroid[/b] and [b]Saul[/b]; you're right in the sense that you can't [u]judge[/u] history like that. But, as I've come to learn through my studies in a history major - you learn to compile lists of factors and present different ideas and perspectives. You don't outright say that this was the cause and that's it - you just explore different ideas and present them rationally. And like I said in the article, it's not clear as to why Truman did it - and that's why Historians have presented different ideas because the Manhattan project began before Pearl Harbour - so, you can only speculate as to why the bombs were used if Japan possibly wasn't in mind at the time (if they were, it'd definitely be a bit more set in stone I think). :/ I just wanted to say that, because I feel like the use of the word 'judge' is a bit off-putting to read. :/ But I get what you mean when you say that some people might think that way, but that might be poor research, poor understanding of contributing factors etc.
(does any of that make sense?)

I think this is a lovely, wonderful article that's really well written and extremely informative but I agree with [b]asteroid[/b] to an extent you can't judge history from today because the scientists and President Truman didn't know exactly what would happen when the bombs were dropped and you could (if you looked at it from a different perspective) say it was a good thing in a sense. Not good that so many people were killed but good that the bombs had been dropped then before other countries had made them even more powerful. It was horrid how many people died but at the same time since that day no one has dropped an atomic bomb since.

I think this was a great article, though I must say that I actually support the fact that Truman issued those bombs be dropped. I don't condone "mass murder" or unjustified loss of life, but at the time when Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped, America was in a very bad state. Pearl Harbor had happened and for the American people, it was a serious loss of life and something that needed to be avenged. In my mind, it's no different than how Bush declared war in retaliation for 9/11. I agree that it's awful that so many people died, and I definitely don't think that the scientists who put together the bombs had any idea of the radiation and other chemical issues that arose from the droppings of the bombs. My opinions aside, this article was very well-written and it had me thinking. :)

The scientists had no idea what destruction these bombs would have weeks, months, years, decades later. It was a desperate attempt to end an already heartbreaking war that cost the lives of dozens of [i]millions[/i] at that point. The Japanese were not about to surrender. Something had to happen, but it's not fair to say "those bombs were awful, President Truman did it to show his power, blah, blah, blah". You can't just look back at history and judge what people have done based on information that wasn't available back then. Here's proof the scientists had no idea what would happen beforehand: after World War II ended, we never dropped bombs like that again.

This is just a random comment not directly addressing anything in the article, just what some people might think. Excellent writing. :)

I did an essay on this topic recently and personally, in my opinion the atomic bombings were no way justified, and the president called for the dropping of the bombs as mostly as a scare tactic against the Soviet Union and for revenge against Pearl Harbour because people said it was so, which I don't get because if it was for revenge for Pearl Harbour, wouldn't their revenge had been well executed by then because in the bombing of PH, over 5000 American lives were lost, while in the firebombing of Tokyo, around 100, 000 Japanese lives were lost which compensated for PH.

But yeah, looking at the Americans' view, the dropping of the bombs did work and it did end the war, but I don't think the second bomb needed to be dropped at all as Japan was very close to surrender, and a blockade had been put all around Japan.

Looking back now I think we can all agree that what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was awful. But back then, all people wanted was a way to end the war and the Japanese were not about to give up. So the bombs were their fast and easy solution. I think the Truman did what he thought was necessary to save America, definitely without the hidden motive of showing the rest of the world how strong American was (in my opinion!).

Anyways, great article! You came across as informative and without any sort of bias. Excellent!

Good article. I truly believe Truman did it to show power at the cost of life, there's really no good explanation to otherwise. One of many mass murders by America as well as other governments during that time period.