Japan was provoked by the West allies to enter in the WW2.
The US was provoked by Japan to drop A-bombs on them until they surrendered.
Here is where the opinions differ about the use of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lets see four of them.
1)- Ones say that it was a great opportunity to experiment the consequences of atomic explosions in humans, something that is not out of the table, because Hitler himself used humans for tests of all kind. The west just copied the same tactics, of course, "with the correspondent excuse to justify it".
We had no need for such experiments. We already knew about radiation injuries.
And in any case, the A-bombs would have made pretty poor experiments. There was no way to pre-position people to see that they received a certain effect. There was also no control case.
There was, however, a need to make Japan surrender.
2)- Another opinion is "to save US troops lives":.
That's not too bad, as explanations go. It is definitely the case that we wanted to save the lives of our soldiers if possible.
But it is ultimately not the reason we dropped the bombs. There was something that was even more important to us. It was so important that we were willing to expend lives (that we would have liked to have saved) in order to achieve it.
We wanted to force Japan to surrender.
A soldier swears to "die for his country". So, when a soldier is on the field, fighting against the enemy, the soldier "voluntarily" has decided to be there, and expose his life to death.
Civilians do not swear to die for their countries.
Apparently you've never heard of the draft.
When a war is in progress and soldiers fight against soldiers, this is when honor prevails.
When a war is in progress and soldiers fight against civilians, this is when dishonor prevails.
There was much Japanese dishonor then, with the way they horribly massacred so many innocent civilians for fun.
The war between US and Japan was won by the US unfortunately with dishonor
Japan was the one who was massacring civilians for fun.
The US, unlike Japan, was not trying to massacre civilians.
There is no valid argument to justify the murdering of thousands and thousands of civilians in order to save the life of hundreds and hundreds of soldiers.
No civilians were murdered by the US. The A-bombs were dropped on valid military targets.
Any civilians who happened to be killed by the A-bombs were mere collateral damage.
Further, the argument regarding the saving of lives presumes that a million
US deaths were prevented.
This number does not include several million
maimings and serious injuries prevented in US soldiers.
It does not count the ten million
Japanese civilians who would have starved to death had the war continued.
And it does not count the non-Japanese Asian civilians who were dying by the millions
at the hands of dishonorable Japanese soldiers.
Only people with sick minds can justify such an act full of dishonor.
There is no dishonor in the wartime bombing of a military target.
If someone justifies the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki murdering civilians, then Saddam Hussein was an amateur, the same than Stalin, and even Hitler can be justified.
No murders occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
However, if we count the number of civilians that Japanese troops murdered, Japan was very much in the same league as Hitler and Stalin.
3)- Another opinion is that there was no way to stop the Japanese. We must remember that the Japanese pilots started to kill themselves at the same time of damaging the enemy's ships. They decided to die hurting the enemy their best.
There was no way to stop this Japanese strategy. The US army became desperate, it was found out that Japan was to fight until the last consequences.
If Japan had chosen to fight to the very end, it still would have resulted in US victory.
Japan fought to the end in Okinawa, and the US still overcame them.
Had Japan decided to do the same on the main islands, the result would have been one giant "Okinawa battle" from one end of Honshu to the other.
4)- And finally, "monkey see... monkey do".
Japan's strategy included causing terror, so killing civilians making occupied territories (Asia, shores of Australia, etc.) to change their minds of cooperating with the enemy worked very well.
Yes. I noted Japan's vast massacres of civilians up where you were noting that such actions were dishonorable.
However, the US did not copy Japan and begin targeting civilians ourselves.
Even the US has used this strategy in Iraq in both recent invasions.
The US has not targeted civilians in the past hundred years. This includes all of our wars in Iraq.
The US used the atomic bombs to terrify Japan and made it stop the war.
The US did not target civilians. Both A-bombs were dropped on military targets.
If this tactic worked so well in 1945, and today is even "praised" by many, them terrorism is not a bad thing after all... don't you think?
Terrorism involves targeting civilians. That is very much a bad thing.