Was the dropping of the Atomic bombs justified? On the 6th of August 1945, the first of two atomic bombs was dropped onto the city of Hiroshima by the US plane Enola Gay. On the 9th of August 1945, three days later, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities in Japan. There are many differing opinions on the subject of whether the dropping of the atomic bombs was justified. One side, such as people in the US, argue that the dropping of the bombs were justified, as it allowed them to test the bomb and end the war quickly. However, another side which includes many people in Japan and pacifists, argues that the dropping of the bomb was not justified, as the effects of the bomb were too horrific. Even though this essay will be exploring both sides of the argument, the second atomic bomb should not have been dropped on Nagasaki. One of the few reasons that the dropping of the Atomic bombs was justified was the fact that Japan would not surrender. There was a large amount of evidence pointing to this: The allies had been dropping conventional and incendiary bombs on Japanese cities, but the Japanese refused to surrender. This gave the US the impression that ordinary bombs were not enough to convince Japan to surrender, and a more powerful bomb was needed. In addition, Japanese forces included Kamikaze pilots, which were-in essence-suicide bombers, willing to die for their emperor and their country. The Japanese military was also training