Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[lacktheknack]

Yes.

...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.

Racism tends to be pretty irrelevant when you know who your enemies are.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Yes we should've dropped them. We were trying to get them to surrender so we dropped bombs on them.

 

[akIceman]

I agree. I find it rather stupid that people ***** about the atomic bombings, when so many more were killed by fire bombings. I mean, what about London, Tokyo, Berlin, Dressden, ect? Virtually nobody complains about their fire bombings. An Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians weren't exactly innocent- Japan's manufacturing capablity had basically been bombed into cottage industries, ie: rifles and various weapon parts were being built in garages and houses. I think it is incredibly arrogent for people to say that America shouldn't be in Iraq, for example, overturning a dictator that HAS COMMITTED WAR CRIMES, and should instead interceed in civil wars in say Africa, where who has done what is much, much fuzzier at best. I am perfectly willing to admit that the bombings were necessary to save lives, and my grandmother's family was from Hiroshima....sometimes, to do the right thing is to do the bitter thing. In war, by definition, must violate "human rights": the goal of war is to deny the life and liberty of the enemy to the point that they give up. At most, the US should have waitted another 4 days or so before dropping a second bomb. Hirohito did say in his surrender radio address that he thought America had many hundred more bombs, and thus would surrender rather than let "human civilization" (the japapese people) be completely destroyed.

 

[akIceman]

Its a false belief to think that the war would have been much worse if a mainland invasion would have been even more costlier than the dropping of two nuclear bombs.

You go under the assumption that the Japanese would have been equipped to fight a war on their homeland that would be costly enough to disenhearten the allied invasion force. The fact of the matter is, Japan was already on a razor thin logistical thread LONG before World War II even officially began. Their equipment and military doctrine was way outdated by what was at the time standard operating procedure. The Japanese never planned on the war with the US as long as it was; they expected the Pacific fleet to be knocked out in Pearl Harbor, and failing that, at Coral Sea and Midway. As such, their weapons development was way behind that of the US. The Japanese put much more stock into their battleship fleets than their carriers, as evidenced by the Yamato and the Musashi, hell, when they realized where they went wrong, they were forced to convert what was supposed to be a "super-battleship," the Shinano, into an ad-hoc aircraft carrier (British camships, eat your heart out). Granted the Zero had a lot in its favor against the early-war Hellcats and Hawker Hurricanes, but the Japanese were so behind in R and D that the Zero's started dropping like flies when the allies started pumping out Hellcats and Corsairs. Do not even get me started by the United State's unrestricted submarine warfare doctrine, Churchill himself said that if he had any doubt that the war would be lost, it would be because of the German "U-boots," the same could have happened to the Japanese. In fact, nearly two-million tons of food, ammunition, and supplies were sent to the bottom by submarines alone.

Now lets talk about troop strengths. Realize that Japan is a tiny country by the standards of the Asian continent. Even before the war, they had their hands full with Chiang-Kai Shek and Mao-Zhe Dong in China and in Korea as well. Now a lot of you know that a lot of Japanese servicemen believed in "death before dishonor." Okay, this was mostly the case, but of course, not always. In fact, at this point in the war, with the Japanese plopping kids barely out of junior-high in the seats Zeros, a lot of IJN pilots and sailors who were starving and dehydrated were more than happy to be picked up by US ships; it was the stories of those who chose to drown themselves that stick with us.

Look, I'm Chinese, I have a lot of friends who are Korean as well (if you know anything, the Koreans feel even worse about the Japanese than we do), my grand-uncle was a a guerilla fighter in Guangzhou during the Second Sino-Japanese war and was killed. A lot of stories my grandmother have told me about the Japanese occupation still haunt me to this day, but even she knows that a lot of Japanese soldiers performed decently and honorably. You Americans think you have as much right to think that what happened to the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified more than we do?

Truman callously said to look to the boys at Pearl Harbor before you judge his decision to drop the bombs. Well, if everyone wen't by his logic, one American sailor was equivalent to a thousand innocent Japanese civilians (even conservative estimates put the combined losses of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at 200,000, and this does not include the prior fire-bombings that destroyed 50-90% of sixty major Japanese cities).

Should the bombs have been dropped? Maybe, but the decision should have been made by someone who was sensible, as opposed to that paranoid, red-hating fascist hack, Curtis LeMay. A demonstration would have been made of the bomb's power before dropping it on the Japanese, and then only on a purely military target.

Point is, do not hide behind numbers and statistics to justify your callousnous. Killing is killing. As for us Chinese, Koreans, and others asian ethnicities that were wronged by the Japanese, we can forgive, but we can never forget.

Uhhhmmm TRUMAN WAS THE ONE THAT DECIDED TO DROP THE BOMB. Virtually the entirety of the Japanese people were prepared to fight to the death...they even got to the point of armming and trainning civilians in the use of bamboo spears. Their reasoning was that, "If we can make it costly enough, the American public's support will give and they will sign a peace treaty." Most people apparently don't realize that the vast majority of Americans wanted the war ended NOW. The army, while trying to build up troop strenght for the invasion of Japan, was being FORCED to discharge entire divisons of crack European troops after VE day, instead of transferring the units to the Pacific.

 

[akIceman]

after having carefully read http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm i failed to see any section matching your "Quote" from said article. what you have presented as foresight is a paraphrasing of one or two paragraphs from the section entitled "Hindsight".

"Japan would have surrendered even if atom bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

is at the bottom of page 26

The second quote is apparently a paraphrasing of the Hindsite section and does indeed deal with hindsite issues. I got the quote from a blog post before I had actually found the Survey. When I discovered that it was a bloggers paraphrase I did not use it. Regardless, the information there is accurate.

in conclusion Ragdrazi, u seem to be lacking in even the courage to be honest with the nature of your claims. enough of you.

Excuse me, but you're the one who could not read the entire Japan Struggles to End the War section. I'm sorry that first quote is half someone else's paraphrasing, no dishonesty was intended, and indeed, none is present here. The paraphrasing is accurate to the information. You can't dismiss the report because you don't agree with it.

as a Marine i understand the rational behind dropping the bombs. as a Man the existance of War itself disgusts and shames me. but i do beleive that the bombs were used in as just a manner as any WMD can ever be used.

How can an illegal weapon be used in a justified manner?

Since when was the nuclear bomb ever illegal? Especially in 1945?

 

[Agiel7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_(book)

Mind telling me how two priests, two Japanese Doctors, a desk clerk at a tin factory, and a seamstress are any more homicidal than Truman and Air Force General Curtis LeMay. I'm in university right now and as far as I recall, that book was part of the English ciricullum back when I was in High School.

Hell, "Demon LeMay" even came up with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker
Fat lot of good that did for the US in the 'Nam in terms of strategic supremacy.

 

[BIGpanda]

guilty by association. Japan was rolling with germany at the time and when had this atomic bomb made most of germany was already flat-lined by US.

 

[Jumplion]

(without reading much of this thread)

The atom bomb was crazy, and it is pretty much morally wrong for innocents to be killed, but "all is fair in love and war."

If all wasn't fair in love and/or war, then it would stretch for decades. If you had the opportunity to crush your opponent to prevent any further damage to either side, you'd probably take it regardless of innocents. If a few innocents have to die to save more, so be it. That sounds cruel, I know, but it's war.

But if the atom bomb wasn't dropped down, some other nuclear bomb would have been dropped sooner or later. I'm not sure if any more nuclear warheads were detonated anymore outside of testing phases, but either was a nuclear bomb would have been used. Better then to know it's destructive power then now.

 

[Raven's Nest]

The whole damn war didn't need to happen. If the treaty of versailles had actually been stuck to, Japan would never have gotten into a scrap with America.

Atomic bombs are the very definition of evil. Over 200.000 innocent men, women and children dead with one press of a button!
It doesn't matter what may have happened, this did happen.

The end certainly did not justify the means.

I really think that people need to learn about the causes of America's introduction into World War II before they go spouting their own "facts". The American government was fully aware of Japanese actions in the Pacific pre-1941. When Japan went on the offensive against the Dutch East Indies, the U.S. viewed that as an attack on colonial powers across the globe. Since at this time the U.S. was seen as a colonial power, that was a direct threat to the power of the U.S. but a threat to the allies of the United States. The U.S. also knew that they were not going to support the Japanese War Machine in its endeavours to bring all of Asia under one rule, so they decided to cut off the supply of oil and other essential products for modern war to Japan. The oil embargo was initiated in August of 41, effectively crippling the capacity of the Japanese military. Once this step was taken, the Japanese took great offense to that and began planning the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

The dropping of the bomb was a necessary evil, something that was an incredibly tough decision to make at the time. Imagine contemplating the dropping of 2 bombs to end the worst war that mankind had ever seen, or sending millions of people to their deaths with a long, drawn out invasion of mainland Japan. Another way to look at this for the opponents of dropping the bomb: your grandfather would undoubtedly have been on the troop transports that were heading across the Pacific. He would have been among the young men to invade the fortress that mainland Japan had become. If he was lucky enough to have survived the initial landing, how long would it have been until he was killed in action? I can safely say that it would have been hours, or possibly even a few days. The U.S. military was expecting upwards of a 75% casualty rate on the initial landings, with at least a 50% casualty rate of the troops that made it off the landing beaches. What would that have proved to the world? That war is terrible? Everyone knows that war is one of the worst things about mankind's existence. The bomb killed almost 250,000 people by the end of 1945. If there had been an invasion of mainland Japan, that figure would have been astronomically higher, 250,000 people dying in the first week. The dropping of the bombs was certainly a good thing, it stopped the war and prevented a much greater atrocity that would have come from the invasion of Japan.

Please take a course on American History post 1918 before you go spouting facts about things that you obviously know very little about.

Okay, I admit I perhaps know approximately not a lot about the reasons Japan and America engaged each other, your informative post has given me a much greater understanding of the situation.

You shall hear no more arguement from me here.

But I would however like to say a few things which cannot be so easliy defended.

1) Yes, Japan's leaders ignored warnings of the horror America was about to unleash on the world. The Japenese people, had no such choice. It was the civillans who died in the bombings not Japan's leaders.

2) Seriously, two bombs? When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, they target mainly the naval base itself and nearly all of her ships, yes, many civillians were killed. When America dropped the first Atomic bomb, the world looked on in shock as one man (in the bomber) had struck perhaps the mightiest of blows in history thus far. No single action has caused more death than the pilot's finger that day. Two days later, history repeats itself. All of this death and destruction was brought down upon heavily civillian populated areas.

It is 100 percent my opinion that two bombs were not necessary to win the war, and that the Americans knew full well what they were unleashing, and that they will never be forgiven by any country on this planet.


On the bright side, an excellent debate which despite the subject matter it is nice to see so many informed responses. After all this thread could have just been a simple amerika VS dajaps woh can winzzz111one!lolz.

 

[joystickjunki3]

It was a war crime if you ask me.

So no it shouldn't have.

I'm curious now, what might your definition of a war crime be? Was Pearl Harbor a war crime too?

Was Pearl Harbour deliberate targeting of civilians? It was an explicitly military attack with the only wrong part being that they hadn't declared war yet. It cannot be compared to the annihliation of two cities.

Alright, I see the point. But it seems to me that dropping the atom bombs placed the US in a very advantageous position. Especially in our relations w/ Russia. War is just like chess: sometimes you have to make sacrifices. It sucks, but that's the way things work.

In addition, I believe someone already pointed it out, but what was the alternative? Invading Japan and making the war last another couple years while taking another 6 million lives in the process. I have nothing to back that up, but I'll be happy to do some research to prove a point.

The troops in an invasion 1) for the most part chose to fight, 2) can defend themselves. What choice or defence did the citizens (or indeed their radiation posioned descendents) of the cities have?

I could be wrong, but it seems like you're taking this a bit more personally than I am meaning to convey.

My point was that for the United States that was the best option in regards to numero uno. It may not have been that long ago historically, but culturally things have changed quite a bit. It wasn't viewed as wrong back then and people were still pissed off about Pearl Harbor, as they should've been. But I understand and empathize w/ Japan's actions. It's sad that the bomb was dropped, but I can't imagine how life would be now if it hadn't been dropped.

The Cold War would not have the way it was. And even if it had been, chances are someone would've dropped an atomic bomb only slightly later w/o much thought as to the aftermath because there was no prior experience w/ nuclear weaponry in the field.

It doesn't matter anyway. Take one variable out and everything gets boned up the ass royally. If you ever read Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead then I'm sure you understand that retrospect is always 20/20.

Don't worry I'm not taking it personally I'm just trying to argue that, objectively, dropping the bomb was a morally wrong decision.

Alright. I just don't like getting into debates that turn into slandering one another.

Morals are all relative, though. And that makes it difficult to judge them more than half a century later.

Agreed, but then the debate turns to which ethical system is right; and that is an argument for another thread.

I think we see eye to eye on that. So instead of bickering about it, I say we just agree to disagree.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Three things I want to say about nukes, just as information. First, Nobody was more scared than the scientists who tested the bomb, a prevailing theory was that the bomb would put off enough heat to light the atmosphere on fire killing everything above the waterline immediately and wiping out many things below the water line due to a lack of oxygen in the water. Secondly, they only had one test and that was with a Uranium bomb, the second bomb that was dropped was a Plutonium bomb that was theorized to be more powerful, though it was unknown just how much more powerful it would be, again getting back to annihilating the air. Thirdly, later atomic weapons, and by that I mean Hydrogen bombs, are actually significantly cleaner than standard atomic bombs. This is because A-bombs are fission bombs entirely, meaning that they release the weaponized Uranium/Plutonium that stays radioactive for too long. H-bombs are fusion bombs and just forms Helium, which is inert. But in order to achieve fusion, a small fission bomb must be used and it's entirely the source of radioactive material in fusion bombs. So had we waited until the H-bomb to see just how devastating these weapons were, we might have had less fallout problems.

 

[Wounded Melody]

The logic is that the bombs STOPPED these kinds of atrocities. Yes it's sad innocents suffered in Japan. But should we have let Nanking continue, and Unit 571 and the bombings on Austalia etc etc?

 

[shannon.archer]

Yes.

...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.

Nothing to do with racism. The japanese war crimes were immense and surely summed up to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The culture of the japanese warranted it as well. If you read into it they were training there school girls in bamboo fighting. What kind of horror is that, to even think that shows how disgusting the japanese were. They had no chance of winning yet they would send there own children... girls too to the certain death?? You say that America had no morals aye. The results not dropping the bomb were fair to disastrous then dropping it. Plus the ability to see the effect of such a weak bomb on civilians has acted as a preventative for other countries who currently hold masses of these bombs. This is proven as many of the bombs creators underestimated the bombs capacity by ten times the amount of its actual force.

So all in all i believe yes. They dropped the bomb not out of ignorance but because the japanese forced them to do nothing else.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Forget D-Day all over again. Invading Japan would have been a slaughter worth of the Somme. A thousand Verduns, a thousand Stalingrads, a thousand Caens- again and again until the entire country finally broke and screamed for mercy.

So yes, it was neccesary.

 

[shannon.archer]

The whole damn war didn't need to happen. If the treaty of versailles had actually been stuck to, Japan would never have gotten into a scrap with America.

Atomic bombs are the very definition of evil. Over 200.000 innocent men, women and children dead with one press of a button!
It doesn't matter what may have happened, this did happen.

The end certainly did not justify the means.

I really think that people need to learn about the causes of America's introduction into World War II before they go spouting their own "facts". The American government was fully aware of Japanese actions in the Pacific pre-1941. When Japan went on the offensive against the Dutch East Indies, the U.S. viewed that as an attack on colonial powers across the globe. Since at this time the U.S. was seen as a colonial power, that was a direct threat to the power of the U.S. but a threat to the allies of the United States. The U.S. also knew that they were not going to support the Japanese War Machine in its endeavours to bring all of Asia under one rule, so they decided to cut off the supply of oil and other essential products for modern war to Japan. The oil embargo was initiated in August of 41, effectively crippling the capacity of the Japanese military. Once this step was taken, the Japanese took great offense to that and began planning the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

The dropping of the bomb was a necessary evil, something that was an incredibly tough decision to make at the time. Imagine contemplating the dropping of 2 bombs to end the worst war that mankind had ever seen, or sending millions of people to their deaths with a long, drawn out invasion of mainland Japan. Another way to look at this for the opponents of dropping the bomb: your grandfather would undoubtedly have been on the troop transports that were heading across the Pacific. He would have been among the young men to invade the fortress that mainland Japan had become. If he was lucky enough to have survived the initial landing, how long would it have been until he was killed in action? I can safely say that it would have been hours, or possibly even a few days. The U.S. military was expecting upwards of a 75% casualty rate on the initial landings, with at least a 50% casualty rate of the troops that made it off the landing beaches. What would that have proved to the world? That war is terrible? Everyone knows that war is one of the worst things about mankind's existence. The bomb killed almost 250,000 people by the end of 1945. If there had been an invasion of mainland Japan, that figure would have been astronomically higher, 250,000 people dying in the first week. The dropping of the bombs was certainly a good thing, it stopped the war and prevented a much greater atrocity that would have come from the invasion of Japan.

Please take a course on American History post 1918 before you go spouting facts about things that you obviously know very little about.

Okay, I admit I perhaps know approximately not a lot about the reasons Japan and America engaged each other, your informative post has given me a much greater understanding of the situation.

You shall hear no more arguement from me here.

But I would however like to say a few things which cannot be so easliy defended.

1) Yes, Japan's leaders ignored warnings of the horror America was about to unleash on the world. The Japenese people, had no such choice. It was the civillans who died in the bombings not Japan's leaders.

2) Seriously, two bombs? When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, they target mainly the naval base itself and nearly all of her ships, yes, many civillians were killed. When America dropped the first Atomic bomb, the world looked on in shock as one man (in the bomber) had struck perhaps the mightiest of blows in history thus far. No single action has caused more death than the pilot's finger that day. Two days later, history repeats itself. All of this death and destruction was brought down upon heavily civillian populated areas.

It is 100 percent my opinion that two bombs were not necessary to win the war, and that the Americans knew full well what they were unleashing, and that they will never be forgiven by any country on this planet.


On the bright side, an excellent debate which despite the subject matter it is nice to see so many informed responses. After all this thread could have just been a simple amerika VS dajaps woh can winzzz111one!lolz.

Gah the response to your argument is too long for me to bother posting. umm although i applaud you for your recognition of a good argument.

 

[shannon.archer]

Yes.

...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.

Nothing to do with racism. The japanese war crimes were immense and surely summed up to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The culture of the japanese warranted it as well. If you read into it they were training there school girls in bamboo fighting. What kind of horror is that, to even think that shows how disgusting the japanese were. They had no chance of winning yet they would send there own children... girls too to the certain death?? You say that America had no morals aye. The results not dropping the bomb were fair to disastrous then dropping it. Plus the ability to see the effect of such a weak bomb on civilians has acted as a preventative for other countries who currently hold masses of these bombs. This is proven as many of the bombs creators underestimated the bombs capacity by ten times the amount of its actual force.

So all in all i believe yes. They dropped the bomb not out of ignorance but because the japanese forced them to do nothing else.

 

[The_Farmer]

If you see watchmen the same thing applies.
SPOILERS!!!!SPOILERS!!!SPOILERS!!!
Ozymandias destroys all of the major cities around the world killing millions to stop the world from delving into nuclear holocaust and killing billions.
they all went along with the idea because it seemed logical and in order for world peace there had to be sacrifice.
Do i detect a similarity in WWII?

 

[Yossarian90]

I think all this stuff about how the A-Bomb saved so many is frankly, bullshit.

There is no evidence that Japan would have fought to the last man, in fact it probably would have been more likely that the Japanese people would have just stopped fighting. They weren't all little robots that were programed to do the emperors bidding, these are people we are talking about here. It was wrong and I agree with the idea that if it had been Germany, they wouldnt have even thought of using it because the Germans were white. The whole thing about saving lives was just a ploy so that the Americans could try out there new toy for world dominance. Look at the Vietnam war; there was no end in sight there and they didnt use a nuclear weapon to save those soldiers lives.

Also this stuff that the Japanese warranted their own nuclear holocaust is some straight up fascist thinking, and what they did is no worse that what the Americans did in Iraq and Afghanistan, what they did in Vietnam with free fire zones. Hey maybe Ive got to thinking Western culture warrants it's destruction, hmm sounds a bit like someone who used to be our friend
What was his name? Fought communists.... ahh yeah Osama Bin Laden

 

[playfulotter]

I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that this question is a heated topic, and the only answer is the one that you feel is right. Going under the aforementioned assumption I bring this to the table, and I apologize if someone has already stated this:

The Honorable Emperor Showa, the 124th Emperor of Japan, the Son of Heaven, was told before the first bombing: "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland". Basically The US warned Emperor Showa that they would utterly destroy them if he did not surrender. Emperor Showa responded by keeping silent and taking no action, a kind of "Silent Kill", almost to the point of ignoring the threat; however, Emperor Showa did send orders to his Advisor, Koichi Kido, to make The Imperial Regalia of Japan safe at all cost. Before the first bomb caused cataclysmic devastation, one of the three pieces of The Imperial Regalia of Japan was moved out of Hiroshima to an undisclosed location. This shows that The Honorable Emperor Showa knew, or at least had an idea of where the first bomb would land and he did nothing to save his people.

Now, before I go on, please allow me to explain. I am in no way condemning or condoning Emperor Showa's actions or inactions. I am merely stating what is widely accepted as fact and true.

Now for those of you who do not know the accepted belief behind The Imperial Regalia of Japan, they are three sacred treasures; each of them represents the very birth of Japan as a nation. However, there are numerous copies of these treasures and no one is allowed, save for the Emperor and those he trust above and beyond all things, where the real treasures are located. The one moved from Hiroshima could have been simply a fake treasure, or it could have been real, I don't think that is a relevant point for the question; but it does illustrate an idea. If they were concerned with moving a copy of a sacred treasure and not concerned with moving innocent civilians, what does that mean?

There are many possibilities, and I make this point to only show that the US was not alone in the tragedy that befell Hiroshima.

On the topic of the second bomb; After Hiroshima suffered a hell on earth, Emperor Showa and his war council did not believe that the Americans had a second bomb of that power. It is an understandable belief, someone shows off their biggest and strongest weapon to only scare their enemies into surrender, and their enemies later discover that the weapon was a one time deal. It is a tactic that is used very often, even in everyday life; except without all the death. The second bombing proved to Japan that indeed, the Americans could cause such destruction a second time; at which time Emperor Showa could do nothing but surrender as an honorable and brave leader of his people.

Now to shed a little light on the true evil of the bombings: The targets were selected through a truly evil series of requirements. The targets needed to be heavily developed, buildings, people, businesses, major roads, etc. The targets needed to have been free from attacks before hand, a kind of untouched by lesser bombs idea, and larger than 3 miles in diameter and important targets in a large urban area. The targets were selected strictly to see just how much devastation one bomb could cause, so the Americans could watch from afar and see the fruits of their testing could provide. To me that is the stomach turning and truly disturbing aspect of the bombings. The targets were chosen because that is where the most death would be caused.

It was a dark and nightmarish chapter in the history of the world, a history that is a catalogue of death and violence, and I personally hope that such a level of destruction is never reached again.

Now please, think of this. After the surrender and Japan was forced to de-militarize, the Nation of Japan put all their energy into developing peace time technology. The Nation of Japan became a powerhouse of technological advancements and education, they flourished and the tiny Island Nation reached something that most tiny island Nations could only dream. They became a world power in The World Economy.

In closing and to restate, the bombings were a part of our history as a world. A dark and nightmarish part that should never be repeated, but it opened the doors for a new world. I must apologize profusely now; I apologize for not answering the question and giving this lengthy and wordy writing about many side notes to add to the debate. I believe that the bombings were sadly made necessary, due to the actions that led up to the bombings. There is no excuse for the untold destruction caused by war, ever; but until everyone on this world can reach peaceful resolutions in regards to all things, war will be a dark and sad constant and in war death is necessary. A Leader of a Nation does not listen to 100 soldiers killed, a Leader of a Nation listens to 1,000 civilians killed, and that fact saddens me to my core.