# data[].attributes.body
We invite you to share your stance on the question, "Do you believe the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was justifiable".
Answers can range from a simple 'yes' or 'no' to a detailed explanation.
You may choose to stay anonymous or add your name.
日本語を書いてもいいです。
Thank you
Leyna, Lily, Zixuan

# data[].attributes.body
No i do not think it can be justifiable. At the time i could have possibly been justified but with the 80,000 lives lost is not okay to use the actions of  atomic bombings. The amount of casualties from the bombings can no way justify nuclear use .

# data[].attributes.body
No, i don't think the bombing of Hiroshima was justifiable.  The deaths of 80,000 people is not justifiable.

# data[].attributes.headline
yes because i think It made it possible for people all over the world to know that war has no meaning and should never happen.

# data[].attributes.subject
yes because i think It made it possible for people all over the world to know that war has no meaning and should never happen.

# data[].attributes.body
The use of a Nuclear Bomb could be crucial for the threat of a country but it isn't worth sacrificing on the population. Therefore, it was not justifiable. A weapon of such power should not be the death of someones life. Ruining the chance for them to life a normal happy life would be nothing more than just being complete inhuman.

# data[].attributes.body
It wasn't justifiable. I think nuclear weapons should not exist because Nuclear Weapons can change everyones lives forever.

# data[].attributes.body
The bomb was not justifiable, many peoples lives were taken and people can still be effected today. It came without warning and people were not prepared for that day.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think that the bomb was justified despite its prevention of "more death" that would have been caused by the extension of the war had the invasion of Japan taken place. The sheer existence of the first atomic bombs would evidently lead to more conflict than necessary including the development of more weapons by multiple countries leading to the nuclear arms race. as well considering how many innocent lives were lost to the bomb and how much tragedy followed the bombing I do not believe that this event could ever be justified considering all of the death and destruction that it caused.

# data[].attributes.body
I understand that the U.S had reasons for doing this, however, the bomb has done too much damage to innocent children and families. The damage cannot be undone.

# data[].attributes.body
It was not justifiable. I think nuclear weapon should never be used.
This one nuclear bomb changed many people and city, and this is still effecting now a day. I think this should never happen again.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the bombing of Hiroshima was not justifiable because many people died for no reason. If the use of nuclear weapons stopped after this Hiroshima bombing, it might of be justifiable because it might save all people's life who might die in future by the nuclear weapons, but since nuclear weapons are stilled produced, we know that the bombing of Hiroshima wasn't enough for people to stop using nuclear weapons.

# data[].attributes.body
It was not justifiable. Innocent lives were ruined because of the bomb. People that never needed to and shouldnt
have suffered suffered.

# data[].attributes.body
yes because it recognized them that the bomb could do nothing. If they didn't dropped it on Hiroshima, they would have dropped on some where else.

# data[].attributes.body
The casualties of children and innocents was horrid, but it would be worse in a hypothetical operation downfall, and many other invasions of japan WOULD, have caused horrid casualties, to take a comparison, look at the battle for Berlin, Children manned anti tank guns, artillery and more, just to save the Nazi regime. Why would children who believe that Hirohito is THEIR GOD. Not fight to the bitter end? The casualties in the battle of Berlin, itself, is a more causality rich event (upwards of 200k dead) , now imagine a battle of Tokyo, or a battle of Hiroshima, imagine the pain from that.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the use of the bomb was justified, but it is a complicated response. The casualties possibly saved on both sides are justified. If the U.S had continued with Operation Downfall, the casualties on just the U.S. side could have been 200-800 thousand. On the Japanese side, up to 1.4 million people could be dead, including civilians. Emperor Hirohito's never surrender policies could make the matter worse, as men, women, and children could be put to war. However, I would say that only dropping 1 bomb would have been more effective, as they would have demonstrated the power of the atomic bomb. On the other hand, the use of the bomb was morally incorrect, as many people were left with radiation poisoning, as well as many forms of cancer. However, from a statistical stand point, it would have been justifiable, and although war is full of feeling, emotion, and terror, from a statistic stand point, the atomic bomb would have been justified.

# data[].attributes.body
From the aspect of ending war, it may have been the most effective but definitely not the correct way. Looking at the thousands of casualties brought to the innocent citizens by the simple drop of a bomb, as well as a city being completely wiped out, it is not justifiable.

However, if the bomb was not dropped, Japan may continue to invade other countries which would cause the warfare to spread and widen. it cannot be neglected that there will also be severe casualties if this was the result.

# data[].attributes.body
While I understand why the Americans dropped Little boy and Fat man, I think it is not justifiable as they dropped them on cities and killed and hurt many innocent civilians. Maybe if they only bombed the military bases then it would've been more justifiable but I still think using nuclear weapons is never the right option.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel as though there are many different perspectives. The political perspective says yes it was because nobody could tell how long the war would continue on. It says that it was best that the US had done it before Hitler had on an American ally.
The other perspective says no because of the moral effects of it on not only the people impacted by it but those around the world. Especially the health of impacted and the amount of fatalities caused by it.
I personally see both sides and can't decide because I know that in war fatalities and mass destruction occurs, but I also know that the impact of those stay extremely long term especially on the survivors. I know that the world would be different and possibly still in war if the bomb had not been dropped, but I'm also scared of what the world would have become if Hitler had bombed before the Americans.
It's both justifiable and unjustifiable....

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I believe the bombing was not justifiable. This is because not only did it affect the victims lives at that moment, it scarred them mentally and physically for many years. Japan was close to defeat and had little resources left, so they were bound to surrender soon. Furthermore, even though the Americans aimed to drop the bomb only on to the "Japanese soldiers" the scientists and the people involved in the Manhattan Project must have knew the scale of the explosion since they had held experiments in New Mexico. This did not just affect the Japanese but affected the American pilot that dropped the bomb. Knowing how much it affected the victims, this was not justifiable.

# data[].attributes.body
It depends on how you look at it. From a military stand point, the dropping of the bomb was justifiable as it saved countless lives and decreased the time it would take for the war to end. However, if you were to look past the military reasons, it becomes harder to decide if it was justifiable or not. Morally, yes, it was wrong, but during a war time, a country must do what gives them the best outcome. It's easy to say that the use of the bomb was not justifiable but considering the circumstances at the time, against a nationalistic imperial Japan, dropping the bomb was the most effective way to force Japan's surrender.

# data[].attributes.body
The casualties that took place due to the bombing on innocent Japanese people is not okay and unjustifiable. The victims had to deal with the impacts of nuclear bombs for the rest of their lives and experienced great discrimination. However, I understand that the Americans wanted to end the war quickly with overall less casualties. Nevertheless the fact that innocent mothers and children were impacted greatly, not only soldiers, is not okay.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the bombing of Hiroshima was not justifiable, America might have needed to drop them to end the war but, the bomb caused too many casualties and also long term effects on not only the hibakushas but also land.

# data[].attributes.body
the bombing was not justifiable, it resulted in many casualties that still affect thousands of citizens today. thousands of innocent lives were lost.

# data[].attributes.body
It was not justifiable, nuclear weapons should never be used, especially on innocent civilians in order to end a war. The victims lives were forever changed and could not return to their former ways of living. They faced discrimination and were isolated from their family, their friends, from the people around them. They were rejected at hospitals, due to the stigma surrounding those that were affected by the atomic bomb. The US dropped the bomb with only a political impact in mind, without considering how it would affect the civilians. Many lived the rest of their lives suffering with their pain alone.

# data[].attributes.headline
The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was justifiable, given the circumstances at the time.

# data[].attributes.subject
The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was justifiable, given the circumstances at the time.

# data[].attributes.body
It is easy to say that the dropping of the bomb was an unjustifiably horrific event today, but that is only thanks to the benefits of hindsight and new gained knowledge. At the time when the decision was made, given the circumstances, the dropping of the bomb was justifiable.
Hiroshima was a relatively major military base, so it wasn't targeted just to harm civilians, there was strategy to this decision. Many other major locations in Japan were also already heavily damaged, so if the bomb was dropped somewhere like Tokyo, it would have less of an effect.
Another thing to note is that Imperial Japan was extremely nationalistic and militaristic, so they would not just surrender easily and most civilians were willing to fight if they needed more soldiers. Even after the bombing on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, there were reportedly quite a few military leaders that didn't want to surrender.
Given that information, the only other option for the U.S. was a full-scale invasion up from Kyushu. Not only would this sacrifice many, many more lives of Allied soldiers, but it would also lead to the loss of much more Japanese life as well.
The extent of the atomic bomb's power was not fully known at the time either. Yes, they tested it once, but that really only showed things like how powerful the explosion was. The nuclear radiation aspect was not fully explored. No one at the time knew exactly what was going to happen.
And on a side note, if the atomic bombs were never dropped on Japan, that doesn't mean that no atomic weapons would ever be developed in the future. It is possible that an even more powerful bomb would have been dropped on even more people, because no one still would have known at the time. Instead of the U.S. and Russia mutually deciding not to use their atomic weapons because they knew of their destructive power, maybe one of them would have used on and sparked another major war. This is all speculation, of course, but these are just some examples of how the dominos could have fallen.
In conclusion, given the circumstances of the time, including the fact that Hiroshima was not a pure civilian target, Imperial Japan would not have easily surrendered, the alternative actions would have cost more death on both sides, and the knowledge about the bombs was quite little, the dropping of the bomb was justifiable.

# data[].attributes.body
History isn't just made up of key events, war and consequences can take years or decades to fully understand the effect. At the time the bomb was a better option than invading through "Operation Downfall", but using two bombs and targeting civilians made this morally unjustifiable. Overall, if there was more time (and information) for the US to strategize a better plan this would've been disastrous, but taking into the context it made sense.

Follow up question:
- Did the US military know about nuclear radiation effects?

# data[].attributes.headline
Yes, dropping the bomb led the Japanese to recognize that there was no way that they could win the war and thus surrounded. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Yes, dropping the bomb led the Japanese to recognize that there was no way that they could win the war and thus surrounded. 

# data[].attributes.body
I  believe that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not justifiable, this is because so many people lost their lives and are still facing issues from the bomb today.  Since Japan was weak they probably would have surrendered soon so dropping the bomb was not necessary as it only had negative impacts.

# data[].attributes.body
Although various reasons were raised in favor of the bomb, my personal belief is that the use of atomic bombs cannot be justified by any means. Many of the reasons arguing that the bombings were justifiable cited the potential success they could bring in terms of military strategy, protecting Japan's "honor", etc. However, from a moral stand point, the human casualties that resulted from the bomb alone can be considered more harm done than can be justified, even if there were truly only good intentions.

# data[].attributes.body
Obviously there is a lot of historical dispute in relation to this question. However personally I believe that the dropping of the bomb was not justifiable. Even when looking at the argument that it saved lives by providing an end to World War II, this doesn't justify that other lives were taken in place of others. In addition to around 80,000 deaths, many more people suffered both long term and short term casualties. Also this bomb dropping allowed for newer technology to be made which greatened the dangers of nuclear weapons and therefore war.

# data[].attributes.body
the bombing was not justifiable. it caused thousands of casualties and it created irreversible long-term effects which are still seen to this day. also, Japan was already weakening and it was likely that they would have surrendered soon.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not have a definite answer as I do not know the exact circumstances of the the causes leading to the dropping of the bomb. I do feel bad for the deaths that the bomb causes, especially looking at the deaths caused after the initial blast. No country was innocent when it came to war. and I think it is good that it caused the war to stop. But, I think the process at which the Americans stopped the Japanese from continuing the war could have been less disastrous. It was a huge loss of lives that was unnecessary and I believe a better solution could have been reached.

# data[].attributes.body
The use of the bombs from a military standpoint can be justified, based on the limited information the US had about the fatality of alternative methods (like the Kyushu Operation)  and the extent of Japanese honor. From a utilitarian perspective, the bombs did seem to result in the least number of casualties, and the Americans cannot be faulted for valuing their lives higher than the Japanese. From every other standpoint, however, it was not justifiable, simply in the way that no act in war can be justified morally. The consequences

# data[].attributes.body
The dropping of the atomic bombs was never and will never be justified.

# data[].attributes.headline
広島原発はアメリカが日本に攻撃した事実が

# data[].attributes.body
広島原発はアメリカが日本に攻撃した事実が今この日まで歴史は伝えられている。当時はアメリカ軍からしては原発を落とすのは有益とされていたが、過去を振り返るたびに無実の人の命を奪う戦争の残酷さや醜さがわかる。私は、原爆投下は正当化されないと思う上で、昔は死ぬか生きるかの戦いだったため原爆することを決めたが本来本当に爆撃は必要だったのかと考えさせられる。ただでさえ戦争中は食料などが手に入らなかったのに、原爆されてから水分を補給するために雨水を飲んでそこから病気などにかかり死ぬの残酷だ。

# data[].attributes.body
- Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, etc. were in worse conditions than Hiroshima & Nagasaki

# data[].attributes.body
The fact

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the atomic bombing was not justified because the Japan was already faltering in military strength and losing during that time, and I believe that they would have likely surrendered if the war continued for a little longer.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the atomic bombing is not justified since the bomb involved killing mass innocent civilians. While rather, the bomb should have targeted military bases and factories, and not involve innocent civilians into the war.

# data[].attributes.body
- The US provided a rational for Japan to surrender and drastically change its country from militaristic to pacifist

# data[].attributes.body
Would the Japanese government have sacrificed the Japanese civilians for a total war with Bushido if the Americans did not drop the bombs and instead opted for Operation Downfall? I believe this could be an arguable topic.

With that being said, with the benefit hindsight of now, the dropping of the bomb can not be justified.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the idea of death in itself can't be justified. To believe the thousands of deaths of innocent people was a "prevention", an atrophy for a bigger crisis is merely an illusion we have created for ourselves to use as an excuse.

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to argue from the perspective of those from that era, who did not have the benefit of hindsight that we have today. Based on the limited information they had on Japanese morale and fighting spirit, they believed Japan would not surrender, and would rather sacrifice their entire population to avoid an invasion of the Home Islands. Thus, it can be said that the bomb served as a honorable weapon, similar to the beheadings practiced by the Samurai, delivering a death blow to a captured opponent. However, the Samurai were the warrior class, and knew the dangers of their profession. The vast majority of those murdered using the bombs  were civilians, who had little to do with the progression of the war, largely controlled by the Army and Navy staff in Tokyo. At the same time, the Americans placed the lives of their soldiers above all else, and estimated that hundreds of thousands of soldiers would die in the invasion of Kyushu, in Operation Downfall. Hence, it can be said that the Americans conducted an extremely biased cost-benefit analysis, which pointed to the usage of the bomb. We will never know the outcome of not using the bomb, nor the true thoughts of those using it, but looking at it from the perspective of US leaders during the war, ultimately, the usage of the bomb can be said as justified.

# data[].attributes.body
At the time, it may have seemed that the atomic bomb would be beneficial (it could end the war and prevent the losses of more people), however, the bomb had effects that are lasting until now in the form of health risks and discrimination. On a whole, I do not think it was justifiable to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not believe the use of the atomic bombs against Japan was justifiable. Yes, the US had certain reasons to justify their actions, however, the atomic bombs ultimately harmed too many innocent civilians to be justifiable.

# data[].attributes.body
Nuclear bombs have no right in this world. Innocent civilians didn't have to suffer for a war they weren't even a part of. I think nuclear weapons serve their purpose in a time like ours were threatening and fighting means we are on the edge of the worlds ending.