up being treated. Posted By: R43Shep No, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have been handled differently. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justified in the consideration of the number of civilians that were killed. While it did shorten the war and save allied lives, it could have been handled differently and was perhaps unnecessary. An advance warning may have led the Japanese to reconsider after the first bomb was dropped. Posted By: ThegaXen The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justified--the atomic bombs did not need to used by August 1945. By August 1945, the Second World War had ended in Europe and was on the verge of ending in Japan. The atomic bomb had been built and tested--but not on civilians. It was not necessary to drop the A-bomb on a non-military target--its effectiveness had already been proven and Japan's military resources were limited, and supply lines had been cut. The only reason to drop the bomb--not once, but twice--was to show the Soviet Union that the United States was the most powerful nation in the world. This did not need to be proven to Japan, nor to the rest of the world--but the US needed to prove this to itself. This could also explain why the USSR quickly became a superpower with atomic weapons by the end of the 1940s, thus marking the start of the Cold War. They didn't want to be under the thumb of the US, anymore than they wanted