Was the second bombing on Nagasaki justified?

Answer 1

It's up to personal opinion.

Yes if you believe that ending the war then and there was a wise decision. The atomic bombs meant allied troops didn't need to invade mainland Japan and engage in a possibly prolonged struggle on the ground.

No if you believe that the radiation and deaths were worth ending the war.

You can do some rational calculations: take the number of lives lost to the atomic bombs, and then stack that up against the possible lives lost on a ground campaign. But you also have to take into account radiation, and the cities demolished.

flip a coin.

One of the points you need to consider is that Japan in fact had it's own atomic bomb project and Allied intelligence from several sources indicated by 1945 that Japan was close to developing it's own nuclear weapons.

These sources include a Japanese serviceman captured in the Philippines cited in a USN Intelligence report dated June 15,1945 and a British Intelligence report of march 1944 citing interrogation of the Chief Engineer from Vermork heavy water plant who had intimate knowledge of Japan's equivalent plant at Konan in Korea. Added to this were several frank exchanges in MAGIC decrypts between General Kawashima and the Japanese embassy in Berlin during 1943.

Answer 2

A justification can be made that it saved both Japanese and Allied lives by ending the war without a Naval Invasion.

Answer 3

According to President Truman and most of the civilians at the time, it was.

Answer 4

The purpose was to end the war and collapse Japan's means to make war ever again. Most people thinks it was justified.