Debate Atomic bombing of Japan in WW2

Me being a kid who loves WW2, I would have to say the first bomb was right and the second was a little off.

Reasons? Well, the first time we bombed them, we were getting back for Pearl Harbor, the second time it was because they would not surrender. Take in note though, imagine what the world would be like if we had not have bombed them? Would we still be the worlds more powerful country? I don't think so. You have to think of how the world would be on the other side of the story. So in my opinion, it was the right thing to do.

 

Not to win the war, but think about how many of our men were killed during Pearl Harbor? It was a surprise attack. We controlled few, but not all the islands surrounding Japan. We had to get them quick and end the war overseas so we could deal with Germany and help Britain. It was mainly just to get them out of the way, and it worked.

 

Well think about how President Truman felt? It took him quite a while to decide. Sure, they could have dropped the bomb somewhere else, somewhere where there was noone living, or maybe in a large desert, etc. I understand how you are feeling, and this is a good debate question as well. Opinions are different, in yours, you say it wasn't justified, in mine I say there was a need for it. This essay is opinionated, am I correct? If so, right how you feel about it.

 

Well, mainly the grade will probably be focusing on how you opinionate your final answer. Just saying stuff like "I don't think it was justified for this, this and this reason" could probably be what he will be looking at. I have never had to do an "opinionated" essay for History, or any other class as of that. But I would think that he would look mainly for how you conduct your essay, maybe length as well.

Good luck on it.

 

I don't exactly see how something that happened before I was born has any bearing on me, and combined with my amoralism, lack of belief in the soul and belief in determinism, I really couldn't care either way.

Ask your teacher if you can argue the point from an amoralist point of view, the concept of right and wrong are pointless if you don't believe them. It may seem like a dumb idea, but if your teacher isn't a **** you can be the only one putting forward an original idea: that the bombing's didn't matter.

 

more lives on both sides would have ben lost if the bombs were not dropped japan would have taken much longer to surrender. Also the cities they dropped the bombs on were industrial centers where resources were being manufactured it wasnt dropped there to simply kill as many as possible. If we look at what happened after the war we helped them rebuild there country so i say we were right to drop the bombs.
el diablo they did say they were not surrendering

 

There was a 3 day time period where we gave them the choice to surrender or keep fighting, they chose to keep fighting. We told them it would happen again. They didn't listen. I seriously don't know how I would live through knowing my family, or someone I knew, died by an atomic bomb. They could have just bombed the mess out of them, couldn't they? Noone knows, and yet, we can't do anything but sit back and read about it in our history books now.

 

One thing that should be taken into account is the recent emerging of the great depression in the U.S.'s part. I don't think we could've afforded to suffer another one, due to japanese invasions and whatnot.

 

How would we have known that though?

 

Your taking a less educated approach.
Japanese soldiers fought to the death, dying for their country was far better then having to deal with the humility of surrendering. If we had not dropped the first bomb many people say that the Japanese were already defeated and the war would have slowly trickled to a stop, but others believe that the Japanese would have fought till the very end. Causing many people (japanese and allies) to die for a silly cause. The dropping of the bomb really opened japans eyes and it allowed them to witness the real power in which we were inventing. The japanese hated to surrender but in order to save their country from complete anielation they had to give up after the atomic bombs were dropped.

A better question would be:
"Was the second atomic bomb, Fat Man, necessary to drop on Heroshima?"

I dont believe a second bomb was needed, i believe that if we would have given japan few more days to come up with an answer lives could have been kept and the second bomb would not have been dropped.
However, otehr may argue saying that "Japan did not belive we had a second bomb waiting" and that may be true, we cant know exactly what the japanese were thinking.

 

Truman seriously considered that...

He did not want to take the risk.

 

The second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, not Heroshima. Also, the Japanese weren't close to surrendering after the first bomb. They were way off. We gave them the 3 day period saying they had the option of Surrender and they denied it immediantly. The second bomb wasn't needed to drop where it did, but it was needed to show the Japanese that we do not mess around.

 

Before I even get into my opinion i believe that in war, morals should not exist. In pre-war time the Japenese empire was considered to be a world power. They had been taking over eastern asia. It was perfectly right to bomb them twice...we should have dropped one on every major city. The only way to truly win a war and remove threats is to anniahlate the enemy. If we let them surrender they could have been like Germany and re-established an army that has a lot of power. If we let Japan have even a little power who knows the outcome. Not to be racist but who cares how many Japenese died by our bombs. We were able to prove we should not be messed with nor should our allies.

Can u post your final copy when ur done...sounds like a good topic

 

Umm...Japan did surrender. What are you talking about?

 

Actually, the Japanese fought in harsh terrains, getting supplies from point A to point B would take hours, and usually the Japanese would intercept it, it was impossible for the U.S to win the war without suffering huge casualties because of the jungles and muddy areas, they could not get tanks anywhere and artillery was and other vehicles was just as difficult to get from point A to point B if not for the Nuclear Bombs, the U.S casualties could have been the second highest in just Japan.

The U.S warned the Japanese Twice that they would Nuke the Japanese, the Prime Minister did not care, and they got nuked once, even then the Japanese used their "Honor" to continue to fight, thus leading to the second bomb being set off in Hiroshima or Nagasaki... I'm not sure.

An example would be the Vietnam War. The U.S army was not adept in fighting in those regions, they did not use Nuclear Warheads in that war, and eventually lost even though they had air control and even naval control.