Sixty-four years after Hiroshima, opinion of the bombings is mixed

Around the world today, people are commemorating the 64th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb in Hiroshima, Japan.

The legacy of that act, which is credited with bringing about a swift end to World War II, is still unsettled: The nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and, three days later, in Nagasaki left a many as 220,000 Japanese dead, but by ending the war (Japan surrendered soon after), they may have spared more casualties.

Quinnipiac University recently asked more than 2,400 registered voters, "Do you think the United States did the right thing or the wrong thing by dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?"

Sixty-one percent of those polled said they believed the bomb was the right thing. Twenty-two percent called it wrong. Sixteen percent were undecided.

But here's where it gets interesting.

The poll's findings suggest that Americans' opinion of the bombing depends on their age, gender, ethnicity and political groundings.

Seventy-three percent of voters older than 55 approved of the decision, and only 50% of voters ages 18 to 34 approved. Seventy-four percent of Republicans said the bombings were a good idea, and 49% of Democrats said so. Seventy-two percent of men approved and 51% of women agreed.

The poll found that only 34% of black voters and 44% of Latino voters supported the bombs, although pollsters cautioned that those numbers may not be representative because the polling sample was smaller for those groups.

What do you think?

We've put together our own (decidedly less scientific) survey. Vote in the box below and let us know.

-- Kate Linthicum

Stay up to date with all Ticket posts and polls by following us on Twitter.

Photo: With the gutted Atomic Bomb Dome as a backdrop, doves fly over the cenotaph of the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima, western Japan. Hiroshima marks the 64th anniversary of the atomic bomb attack that devastated the city at the closing days of World War II. Credit: Shizuo Kambayashi / Associated Press

Comments

[SkipFrank]

The reason I'm probably here is because we didn't have to invade Japan. My father would have been one of the assault troops. After seeing the way Iwo Jima and Okinawa played out, their survival would have been iffy, at best. Thanks, Harry.

[Joe]

It was a horrible thing to have to do. But many horrible things happened during that war (and all wars). I think it was tragic, brutal and inhuman... but I still have to agree that it was the right thing to do, based on what I know of the times. The horrors that the Japanese were visiting on us and the rest of the world had to be stopped.

[Tom]

Those who think the bomb wrong are probably too young to remember the horror of war and the anticipated high loss of American and Japanese lives in subduing a recalcitrant and unrepentant aggressor nation had we fought on the main islands of Japan. The parents of the nay-saying generation probably would not be here if that had happen.

The bomb on Hiroshima was necessary to end the suffering of all. If not for the bombs, there would have been more suffering and the Japan we know today would not have been.

[Mikey Kay]

Putting aside all the arguments made since 1945, it's important to remember August 6 and 8 as the dates that atoms were purposely first used to incinerate the populations of cities. It's also important that America did it. So far, no other nation has done that. And if, as we all hope, it will never happen again, still it ushered in a mindset that war could be efficient, despite the impassioned pleas to the contrary of the scientists who conceived and delivered the weapon. What Auschwitz and Hiroshima share is indiscriminate mass murder. Refining that conceit to smart targeted weapons is inadequate justification for the idea that killing is a solution for any argument. If we forget that, someone we have angered will hasten to remind us.

[Jason]

Dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan was not a good thing. In fact, it was a terrible thing. However, due to the horrendous circumstances of the war, it was the right thing to do. The US military estimated that over a million Japanese would be killed during a conventional invasion of the island, with US casualties rising into the hundreds of thousands. So, most expert opinion states that this awful action actually saved many lives and brought a quick end to the war.

[theantibush]

The bombings saved lives. It ended WWII without us having to invade Honshu and killing most every single Japanese person in Japan at who knows what cost in allied lives. The bombings saved millions of lives.

More Japanese were killed in our fire bombings, but the atom bomb put the real possibility of wiping out all major Japanese cities in a single raid squarely on the table. Furthermore, the bombings saved most of Japan from partitioning and Red Army occupation under Stalin, something that would have destroyed Japan utterly, more than fleets of nuclear bombers.

Japan exists today as a nation thanks to the use of those two weapons, and their victims are the true kamikazes that saved the country from oblivion.

[Jack]

This is a stupid poll. Do you honestly think that a serious conclusion can be summed up in 3 choices: Yes, No, and Maybe. There is no right answer; the only correct answer is to understand the actions that were taken by those at the time under the prevailing circumstances and the morality of those actions. This poll does a dis-service why reducing an ethical question in to "sound bytes".

[Eltunz]

The question is biased. If some think Hiroshima bombing was the right thing to do, some could wonder if a second bombing was also necessary.
Also, wouldn't bombing a symbolic but less populated area have been as effective and less lethal?

[Jorge]

I beg to differ with the so called "majority". The military commanders were against dropping the bomb, that should be an indication that something is definite morally wrong with America. This day, along with the bombing of Pearl Harbor should live in infamy. Two wrongs don't make a right and killing innocent civilians is not O.K. ever if we are to keep the appearance of civility. It's the same that is happening today in Iraq and Afghanstan. Whenever the killing of innocent civilians becomes accepted, specially by a so called "Christian" nation, it means that we are not anymore Christian nor democratic.

[G.H.]

To add to my previous comment, I wish to share these words from Admiral Leahy, Truman's top aide:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

[Able Baker]

No mixed feelings here. We should have leveled the entire god forsaken country. Remember the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor before you open you liberal pie holes.

[JPT]

People seem to forget that the Japanese murdered 20-30 MILLION people during WWII -- more than the Germans!
The Japanese STILL wouldn't surrender after the first bomb. It took TWO bombs to finally get them to surrender.
Unfortunately their own impeialistic policies and racist mindsets brought this horror upon themselves.

[JR]

No mixed feelings here. They started the war and deserved the wrath that fell on them. The apologists should ask any Korean, Filipino, Chinese, Vietnamese, Burmese, Malayan or Pacific Islander who enjoyed time under Japan's "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere". They still give a thumbs up and hearty thank you to us for dropping The Bomb. Besides, I would not have got to know my uncles, who were preparing for the invasion of Japan, if they had to go through with the invasion. How soon the ungrateful and the ignorant forget.

[JB]

How can we justify killing of thousands of innocent people for the sake of the interests of a few politicians? This is one of the most atrocious crimes this country has committed.

[mikesurfer310]

As a liberal I believe that killing is almost always WRONG. I also believe in sympathy and social responsibilities. That's exactly why I think the atomic bombings of Japan at the end of WWII were the RIGHT thing. Most agree that there would have been more deaths, more suffering and social unrest if we didn't utilize the bombs. Even Japan is a better place today since we servered as Japan's protectors, allowing them to focus their energies on commerce that allowed her to become a world leader. Of course hundreds of thousands paid the ultimate price for her advancement but how many of us today would not be here if we didn't force a quick and unconditional victory?

[Ramjet]

I think a demonstration of the power of the weapon should have been staged, using a remote location that could have been evacuated. The Japanese should have been asked to send observers to this demonstration and it should have been covered by the press. Following the demonstration a surrender deadline would have been imposed. The weapon had already been tested here in the US, and a follow-up public test would have been likely to have forced the Japanese to surrender.

[AJ]

Dropping the bomb was absolutely the right thing to do. Japan committed many atrocities throughout Asia, especially against China and Korea. 220,000 Japanese lives do not even start to compensate for the millions of Chinese and Korean civilians killed by Japan through their aggression. The act of dropping the bomb saved many more millions of people that were being slaughtered by Japan for leisure. The bomb should have been dropped on Tokyo instead to hit them where it hurts. It's hard to muster any sympathy for Japan on this issue.

[Daniel]

Only someone with a poor educational background in history, and answering the poll from an emotional or personal viewpoint would make the case that dropping the bombs was a mistake.

It is clear from so many viewpoints that use of the weapons was overwhelmingly the right thing to do. Its not as controversial an issue as the article seems to imply.

It is popular belief that today's youth is getting a substandard ecuation comapred with times past, and that inner city minorities recieve an even worse overall education than the general population. This poll seems only to confirm that anecdotal evidence.

[Ed C.]

You can bet that vote will also be skewed if you factor in Chinese and Koreans, who got jacked by the Japanese empire.

[Riley McIntire]

There are many aspects to this. Killing of civilians was an accepted act of war for all countries then. It would be wrong now, though. I think it was wrong then. A demonstration bomb or two would probably have been as effective.

On the other hand, we've now had an atomic war, and seen its effects, and know that nuclear weapons are that much worse. Had this not been demonstrated to the world, would the US and USSR have made it through the Cold War without starting a nuclear conflagration? Very possibly not. So, maybe, in that sense, the bombing of Japan prevented something so much worse it's almost unimaginable.

[Cheol L.]

how would americans vote if our govt. had apologized for the bombings? i know alls fair in love and war, but in my opinion an apology is due.

[jboomer]

Strategically, it was obviously the right choice. The bombs saved tens of 1000's of American lives. The Japanese also had a net benefit in terms of lives and infrastructure that was not destroyed as part of a conventional assault on the home island. Morally? In pure utilitarian terms, the bombings were justified for the reasons above. More lives were saved than lost because these weapons were used. Japan was a cruel agressor against the US, China, Korea, etc., so one could argue the bombs were justified for punitive reasons as well, although the vicitms of the bombings were not necessarily the perpetrators of Japan's crimes. Finally, the bombs had a deterrant effect on Stalin, helping the Allies as they sorted out borders and spheres of influence in Europe. In the final analysis, the bombs dropped on Japan were terrible and we should all hope their kind are never used again. Nevertheless, the decision to use them was the right one, made at the right time.

[jchang]

It was necessary act to do in a WAR. The casualty toll on both sides would have incalculable. If you are against using the bomb, is not using the bomb worth 200,000 lives?

Look at Iwo Jima and other bloody island battles as an example. Today, we look with different judging eyes. Could you believe anything else could have stopped a nation and people that created the kamikaze, the first suicide bombers, sacrificing their youth of their nation. A nation of fanatics could not be stopped by conventional means.

[cory b]

it's a tragedy that innocent people was killed in the bombing but if you study history the bombing was justified. It's easy for people to look at what happened at Hiroshima and Nagaski and forget what lead to that tragic day. Japan and its army then was spreading across Asia and committing atrocious war crime on mankind. Knowing how tough it was to force the Japanese to surrender ( they were willing to fight to the last man) on their homeland the U.S had no choice but to choose the lesser of the two evils.

[Nathan]

Unfortunately, I will have to concede that the greater opposition to the bomb by my generation (I was in grade school in the late '80s) is most likely due to our general lack of familiarity with the event and especially its circumstances.

The fact that an atomic bomb had to be used in a wartime situation, and twice at that, is absolutely atrocious and horrific. But the a-bombs came after the firebombing of nearly six-dozen Japanese cities earlier that year, in which those cities were, on average, 50% destroyed (some as much as 80-90% destroyed). These bombing raids killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians and, according to some estimates, caused injuries to more than 1 million people.

War is ugly as hell and World War II was one of the ugliest. But the States' objectives in the war were crystal clear - something we aren't used to these days. Japan was a serious aggressor with designs on world domination. They were hellbent on their goals and would have stopped at nothing to achieve them.

A thorough reading of the history has convinced me that it was only through the catastrophic and devastating blow brought on by two successive atomic bombs that would bring the Japanese regime to its knees.

There was a true victory, a true surrender, a true reconstruction and there is now a nation of people that have truly remade themselves, to their credit.