Anonymous  +  418426 Fri, 14 Sep 07 08:44 AM  in my opinion,i think it isn't necessary to drop to bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.Although Japanese fascio attacked Pearl Harbor and killed many people in it,but dropping two nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima is a barbarous behavior.not only did it kill people who were more than 200000 in that time,but also it made many other crimes because of its uranium which could make sick and polution....And today, it still exists.I think US drops two bomb not because they wanted to kill fascio.It's just a small reason.the main reason is that they wanted to make a revenge and wanted to warn Russia about the strenght of america military.   Anonymous

	Prez1dent  +  419111 Sat, 15 Sep 07 05:11 PM However, we can't bring it back... And you know... I'm not against the USA, yes they bombed Hirosima and Nagasaki in 1944 but it was their revenge for the treacherous attack on Pearl Harbour, wasn't it? Prez1dent Joined on Mon, Jan 8 2007 USSR Senior Member 2,643 *IF's crazy li'l bro* *Floxflow's crazy uncle* ++Member of Floxflow's fan club++ I haven't spoken English for so long. Plz correct me if I make mistakes))

	Grammar Geek  +  419131 Sat, 15 Sep 07 05:27 PM No, it wasn't revenge. The intention was to bring an swift and immediate end to the war when it was clear that Japan was not going to surrender and the loss of life was going to continue until the last man was left standing. And as this was going on, other people in Jananese-occupied territories were also suffering horribly. It's been argued that the loss of life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less than what it would have been if the war had continued. I don't konw those facts. By the way, it was 1945, not 1944, after the war in Europe was over. And yes, I think there was also a strong component of demonstrating military might. Was it justified? I wish it had never happened. But whatever it was, it was not revenge. Grammar Geek Joined on Tue, Jan 10 2006 Veteran Member 19,652 Barbara, who answers in American English. My housekeeping skills attest to the truth of the second law of thermodynamics: Left to themselves, things get more and more random!

	Dew 2007  +  419161 Sat, 15 Sep 07 06:18 PM Whatever it was - it was not justified. Japan wouldn't have been able to fight for longer than two more weeks without the use of nuclear weapons - it could not and should not be justified. But now, it's much more important not to let it be used again. Dew 2007 Joined on Sun, Jun 17 2007 Russia Contributing Member 1,352 Keep wondering!

	Prez1dent  +  419181 Sat, 15 Sep 07 07:30 PM 1945? Sorry for the mistake. As I've said we CAN'T change anything so we can only discuss it. Japan had started the war and got the war. Am I right? Prez1dent

	Dominik  +  419209 Sat, 15 Sep 07 08:56 PM Here you can read an interesting article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki Dominik

	Grammar Geek  +  419216 Sat, 15 Sep 07 09:37 PM Interesting. Thanks for the link.  You can debate it as a war tactic, but I think, when it's all said and done, I come down on the "inherently immoral" aspect. But I also know it's a lot easier to take the moral high road when it's 50 years later and I'm not actually in the midst of a war. I can't honestly say what I would have done if the decision had rested with me, knowing people were dying in huge numbers every day that the war continued . Grammar Geek