Atomic Bomb
Was the United States justifed in using the atomic bomb to end World War II?
justified
Side Score: 67
|
 |
not justified
Side Score: 81
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
1
point
2
points
Their civilians were assembling a militia and were going to fight, I don't mean joining the army I mean they were sharpening sticks and finding anything they could use as a weapon and preparing for invasion, if we stepped on to the island their would have been much more deaths (soldiers and civilians) Side: not justified
1
point
From what i could recall Japan had already reach out for surrender but the terms were not acceptable to the US. Japan wanted to keep the emperor when they surrender but were denied by the US. I can see why would Hitler still be in power once Germany was defeated but why drop a bomb that would kill thousands of innocent civilians just to make someone leave their throne. It would of been much easier to accept the surrender and later kick the emperor out of his throne. Side: not justified
2
points
I agree with the United States but it doesn’t mean I like it. Basically it came down to whose lives were going to be lost and who was willing to lose more. The Americans had already lost too many soldiers; they weren’t willing to lose anymore. The war with Japan needed to come to an end. Negotiations between the United States and Japan had reached a stand still. Japans imperialistic leaders believed in the Samari code which would mean death before dishonor. The Japanese made it very clear that they’re intentions were to draw this war out to the point there would be millions of lives lost. The Japanese had no intentions on surrendering so the United States would have had to invade the mainland of Japan. With the dropping of two atomic weapons, the war was brought to an end. The amount of Japanese civilians loss of life is sad but the invasion would have left more dead. Side: justified
I like that you posted a support in this fashion and I can understand your point of view, even though I posted in the "not justified" section. I think that it was not an action that many people did like, and it was very sad how many lives were lost, but as many people stated in the justified category, it was necessary to end the war and invading Japan would have cost the United States many casualties. I like the fashion of your response because you stated the simple facts such as, "the Americans had already lost too many soldier; they weren't willing to lose any more." I believe that this was true, and Truman most likely felt that this was the only option to end the war and save American lives. One thing that I did not like reading from our text was that fact that Truman said, "the atomic bomb is a weapon, and weapons are meant to use." I thought that this was a juvenile comment and really did seem like he was not thinking the situation through. As you said I did not like the fact that the atomic bomb was used, and it would have been terrifying if it had created an atomic war with all countries participating, but because of the outcome it is easy to see the reasons why the United States believed that this was justified. The Japanese were not planning on surrendering and as you stated if we had invaded it would have left more dead (both Americans and Japanese). What I feel is the saddest part, and one that I feel makes the dropping of the atomic bomb not justified is the fact that so many innocent lives were taken. Do you think that if the United States would have invaded that some of the innocent Japanese people would have been spared and it would have been more of a military battle? Side: justified
1
point
I agree that the decision to drop the atomic bomb was morally wrong and cannot be justified in a sense of killing over 100,000 people. However with that said, the U.S. had a difficult decision to make and had to weigh the number of American lives that would be lost and the number of Japanese lives. Had the Americans invaded Japan, there would have been catastrophic effects leaving thousands on both sides dead. It is also unsure of how long the war would continue. It is in fact the government's job to protect the lives of as many Americans as possible and this was the reasoning behind it. It is also true that Japanese culture is filled with pride and honor and they would not surrender without a fight, prolonging the war even more. Side: justified
The Japanese could not fight anymore. No matter how much their leaders were willing to stand, the war was over. Moreover, there is no justification for targeting civilians. The argument pro bomb consists on saying that more AMERICAN lives would be spared, with that I agree, but Atomic Bomb?? over 200 thousand lives combining both cities, people that had nothing to do with the war, that is just too much Side: not justified
1
point
I agree with you on the part where America had to take this huge risk by protecting civilians in the United States. The United States took a risk on impulse I think, but this measure was made quick not only protect the nation but themselves as well. I think though they should've thought of a better strategy, but who knows if there could've been another option then the atomic bomb. Side: not justified
The United States was justified in using the atomic bomb to end World War II. President Truman made the right decision to drop the atomic bomb. They were nearing an end to the worst global war in history and something needed to be done to defeat Japan. If the United States just invaded Japan it would have resulted in the death of as many as 250,000 American and many Japanese. Although many civilians were killed in the attack, many civilians were also killed by Japan and the Axis throughout World War II. The dropping of the atomic bomb was not the first civilians were a casualty of war. Unfortunately, civilian casualties are a reality of war. Many more civilian lives may have been lost if the United States invaded Japan instead of dropping the atomic bomb. The United States was justified in using the atomic bomb because Japan also attacked the United States with the attack on Pearl Harbor and that was when the United States declared war on Japan. When we are at war we must use whatever force is necessary to defeat our enemy and in this the atomic bomb was necessary. The United States created the atomic bomb as weapon and weapons are supposed to be used. It was important to show the rest of the world the power of the atomic bomb we created. The atomic bomb was also justified because the Japanese were also ruthless to American soldiers and committed war crimes during the Bataan death march. They mistreated American and Filipino prisoners of war by not giving them food, water, executing them and many other horrendous things. The United States was justified in using the atomic bomb because of the war crimes committed by Japan, the attack on Pearl Harbor, it saved American lives and United States needed to try something drastic to defeat Japan swiftly. Sources: Give Me Liberty! Chp 22 pg 841-874 Side: justified
Hi Melody, I am going to have to disagree with you that the United States was justified in using the atomic bomb to end World War II. Some of why Truman made his decision to use this horrible weapon was at the prompting of the scientists who had built the bomb. Of course they wanted him to use it - that is why it had been invented - to use. Since it was a new technology, there was very little known about the effects. It is too bad that it couldn't have gone through more rigorous testing before its use. When the United States began the war (any war) it was "expected" that you would have casualties - on both sides, including civilians. When Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, it was a naval facility. That would have been a likely target, just as the Americans would target Japanese military bases. When the location was chosen to drop the bomb, it was deliberately dropped in a densely populated area that was comprised of mainly innocent citizens and very few soldiers. It was not a military facility. You brought up how the Japanese treated American soldiers. Throughout the years, Americans did not treat Japanese fairly - on American soil, at war or not. I would have to guess American soldiers did not treat the Japanese kindly either. As the book pointed out, Japan was on the verge of surrender - I would like to believe that had we negotiated and compromised a little more, we could have ended the war without using the bomb. The United States could have shown its strength using non-violence instead of violence. Side: not justified
I would have to disagree with you Melody. The United States was not justified in dropping TWO atomic bombs on Japan. Granted, Japan did attack us at our naval base in Pearl Harbor and civilians lives were lost. The U.S. didn't drop the bombs on any military base but on two cities full of civilians. Just because we created weapons, does not mean we need to use them. You also stated that the Japanese committed war crimes against American soldiers. I would like to point out that the Americans were just as ruthless to the treatment of Japanese solders and Japanese-Americans living in the U.S. Side: not justified
I agree with you whole heartedly that the decision to nuke Japan sent a psychological message. I know how horrible the anihilation appears from what we know about the atomic bomb. Yet, I must ask what is worse the painful death from a weapon, or the agonizing torture of the evil Axis Power Japan. I served in the Marines and I have seen Museums documenting the Bataan death March. I have spent months on end in the Philippines talking to these people about it. The Japanese were on a blood thirsty war path. Unfortunately sometimes in extreme circumstances good must match evil gear for gear. Some say the Atom bomb was horrendous, I say it was a necessary evil. Side: justified
I believe that the United States was justified in dropping the bomb. I think ultimately it had to be made known that the U.S was not to be messed with. Who knew how long the Japanese would continue to fight and how much more lives and money would be spent on the war. The Japanese should have just surrendered when given the opportunity and I believe that Truman made that correct decision. Side: justified
I agree that America needs to defend itself and defend its role as a “power house” but targeting civilians instead of the Japanese army in my opinion makes us look weak, not strong. Also, the Japanese were ready to surrender. They wanted to negotiate the conditions of surrender with America so that their emperor could remain on the throne. It was America that would not negotiate with them because we were being too stubborn and demanding an unconditional surrender. We very impatiently just attacked the Japanese with the bomb instead of giving them any opportunity to speak out. There are several quotes from military personal (IN the warzone) whom spoke out against the use of the atomic bomb. For example, "The use of the atomic bombs 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." - Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman. So we did not need to launch the bombs for any productive reason other than simply exterminating thousands of civilians unnecessarily. Side: not justified
1
point
It was a tragic necessity to finally have to drop the atomic bomb on Hiiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody wants war, nobody wants dead civilians or thousand of dead American soldiers or having to explain to their families why they would not be returning home from overseas. There had already been enough of that and it was time to just end the war and bring American soldiers home where they belong. Unfortunately, Japan was unwilling to give up and they were unwilling to unconditionally surrender. Some might argue that they would have because the Soviets were also planning on going into Japan to defeat them. By this time, the Allies were not very trusting of Stalin and did not want the Soviets in eastern Europe AND Japan as well. Not using the bomb which took 2 billion dollars to develop with the Manhattan Project, defeated the purpose of having it. It ended the war without having to send more American soldiers into a ground war, and it also showed Stalin and the Soviets (and the rest of the world) the full extent of American military power. The horrific tragedy of civilian deaths had been and will always be, a reality in wartime Side: justified
Showing the Soviets the full power of American isn't really a justifiable reason for dropping an atomic bomb. It almost makes the US look like bullies. America knew that other countries had the nuclear technology, but was it necessary for them to be the first to use it. If anything the use of the atomic bomb made the US targets during the Cold War. During World War II Americans and Soviets were actually fighting on the same team against Germany. Of course many factors caused the tension of the Cold War, but the use of the atomic bomb was the start of it. Some times being powerful is not showing what you have. Side: not justified
Yes, I agree with the decision of the American government to use the atomic bomb. Truman took over after FDR died and as president, he gave the order to drop the bomb. After the fierce fighting in the Philippines, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, and so many other islands during the war, the American forces knew what lay ahead with the invasion of mainland Japan. The American high command estimated it would take over a million American lives to invade mainland Japan. Truman noted that the amount of American lives that would have been lost was more than America was willing to lose. Truman did not want to put more American lives at risk, so Truman looked for alternatives to invasion. The atomic bomb was being developed and after being tested in the New Mexico desert plans were made to use the atomic bomb to end the war. Although the love of life was great for the Japanese people it would ultimately take two atomic weapons to bring Japan to the negotiation table to finally achieve peace. The Japanese people showed their resolve by still not willing to surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped, proving that the resolve to fight on would have been greater if America did not use the atomic bomb. Side: justified
1
point
Does it not bother you that Truman had several alternate plans in place that he didn't try first. I think that when the case of mass murder is at hand, more than the military should give their opinion. He made that call based on military advisory. It is not only the Japanese people that have to live with this. This one event changes how people look at America as a whole. I believe that if the people had the right to vote on matters this large as well that this horrific event could have been avoided. How does one debate that power is more important than morality? How can we say that we are seeking peace and yet we seek to destroy? I think that this just opens the door for future carnage at the sake of world domination. Side: not justified
During a time of war it is impossible to put plans, actions, or tactics to a vote. By the time votes have been counted and a course of action decided the tactical advantage would be lost. The reason you have elected officials is so that during a time of war these officials can make the hard decisions. It may not seem at the time that these decisions are made for the right reasons, but rest assured that these officials do have to live with the decisions they make. Being an elected official is not an easy task, people tend to remember the bad more than the good. I could only imagine what it would take to put in motion a plan that would cost so many lives, but if it meant putting an end to the blood shed after so many years of war it would not be a decision i couldn't make. Side: justified
The atomic bombs should have been dropped. As the Japanese were people who despised ultimate surrender and felt incredible amounts of pride for their country, their surrender from the war would not come easily.The mass deaths of Japanese citizens and soldiers was unavoidable. Even with the threat of "prompt and utter destruction" in the Potsdam Declaration, Emperor Hirohito ignored the document. While peace negotiations were incredibly brief, it is unlikely that the Emperor and military would have allowed more time for negotiations, or even paid attention to other negotiations. Other alternatives to the bomb drops were violent alternatives, such as Operation Downfall. The invasion would call for the capture of a third of one of Japan's main islands, Kyushu. The second part of the invasion would involve invading part of Tokyo. Estimated American casualties varied from 105,000 over 120 days (for the first part of the invasion) to 1.7 through 4 million casualties to conquer the entire country. The same study as the latter one also estimated 5 to 10 million Japanese casualties. Japanese authorities demanded that the civilians aid in defending their homeland, which explains the large number of Japanese casualties; simply disobeying the military was unheard of. When the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the city had received no warnings of attack. There were no warnings for the second bombing either, other than an air raid warning which was quickly canceled. Japan had assumed in both bombings that the small amount of planes were simply flying reconnoissance missions; there was no outlying evidence to worry about a weapon of such mass destruction. This is the only aspect of the situation that I disagree with. With weapons that would cause such a large amount of deaths and injuries, warning citizens ahead of time and allowing them to evacuate their homes would have been more humane than forcing them to their deaths, or, for the survivors, suffering the rest of their lives from the burns and nuclear aftermath. However, thinking back on the alternative of invasion, it seems as though the deaths and suffering were, and are, a necessary sorrow. While the civilians could arguably have been innocent of any of the crimes that the country committed, there were few options for ending the war. As Pearl Harbor gave as evidence, the military was not afraid of suicide bombing missions, and the atrocities committed in Manchuria and Nanking display even more horror. Even if civilians held low opinions of the war, would the military and Emperor allow the country to surrender? How long could the country last as its military attempted to kill everything in sight, and how long could peace reign? When the military and Emperor were told of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they surrendered quickly, even agreeing to disarm themselves. Overall, I believe that the dropping of the bomb was justified. Every alternative to this would lead either to millions of deaths or war in the future. For most circumstances, I would be against the usage of nuclear weaponry; however, with such constraints as there were during World War II, it seems to be the least sorrowful ending of the war. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall Side: justified
Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan in hopes of ending the Second World War is perhaps one of the most controversial and scrutinized choices made by any United States President throughout our entire history. It is also a decision that I find completely justifiable. Here’s why: Reason 1 - Operation Downfall: Outside of the President – Roosevelt and, subsequently, Truman – along with a select group of scientists, almost nobody knew about the Manhattan Project prior to the dropping of the atomic bomb. This included U.S. military leaders, who had no knowledge, whatsoever, that the use of nuclear weapons had even become an option. Instead, military leaders had created a plan to invade Japan – Operation Downfall. Operation Downfall would have resulted in an estimated 1.7 to 4 million U.S. casualties, and over half a million American deaths, as predicted by the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. The military made enough purple hearts in anticipation of US casualties and losses from Operation Downfall that those same Purple Hearts have been used in EVERY WAR (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) following World War II – no new hearts have had to be made yet. Truman was informed of these figures before making his decision, a factor that obviously influenced his decision to drop the bomb and, in my opinion, justifies that decision. Reason 2 – Level of Destruction: Before Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, nobody actually knew the kind of devastation that an atomic bomb could cause. There were predictions, of course, but in no way could Truman have understood the results of the nuclear bomb before actually choosing to drop it. I am confident that if he had known, he wouldn’t have dropped it. Since the US dropped the bombs in Japan, no nuclear bombs have been used to attack an enemy. This is because we now realize the potential that these weapons have for causing mass destruction. When given the opportunity to drop an atomic bomb on North Korea during the Korean War, Truman refused. This is because he now understood the level of destruction that an atomic bomb could cause. Side: justified
1
point
But in terms of your second reason, that's actually one of the main things that bothers me about the bombing. Nobody could have known how terrible it was, and while that's not exactly unfair, so to speak, it was extremely inconvenient and tragic. Furthermore, if the situation had somehow been less urgent and the Japanese had more time to respond, for example a month or so, then they would have realized the effects more acutely and Nagasaki could have been saved, at least. But unfortunately, the Japanese got nuked twice, and then surrendered, and then the severity of the effects really sunk in. It was no doubt an unavoidable situation, but there are a lot of things about it that just make it particularly terrible. Side: not justified
1
point
President Truman had a number of choices think over for ending the war, but the dropping of the atomic bomb was Truman's final decision. Although this event caused chaos and controversy, it seemed that by the end of World War II, Truman's decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were accepted by most individuals. Most of those who were alive at the time thought that Truman did it strictly for military reasons; to quickly end the war and prevent invasion of Japan. Most Americans realized the obvious reasoning behind his decision and at the time of the bombing, it seemed it was not a problem that there would be so many casualties on the opposing end. Eventually, people questioned if Truman had an ulterior motive for dropping the bomb but when it comes down it to it he was the president and was looking for the best route to protect his country. Although there were many opinions from different sources criticizing Truman’s decision, when you look closely at the full spectrum of the situation, it becomes clear that Truman's final choice to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was essentially based on the purpose of saving lives and ending the war quickly in order to avoid a destructive invasion. Side: justified
Although you made some interesting points I still disagree completely! We wanted justice and an end to the war! Is that not all that we wanted? YES! It was all we wanted, to end WWII! There is evidence that the Japanese were ready to surrender but the President did not accept their surrender because it was not "unconditional" enough for him. To me that does not sound like a President that only wants to end the war and keep his country and countrymen out of harms way. This to me sounds like a President that wanted more than to just end the war! He brought upon misery that was of no need! This event did not have to happen and this injustice has put a scare to the whole world! This issue has sustained itself to present day and we fear that some country's will do the injustice that President Truman has done. NOTHING justifies injustice! Side: not justified
The only reason that the dropping of the atomic bombs was “accepted” by most people was because the Americans were so brainwashed by the propaganda that depicted the Japanese as animals and not deserving of basic human rights. The brainwashed Americans had no compassion for people, but rather a bitter hate for what they believed to be primitive creatures. The wanted to exterminate the Japanese as one would exterminate a pest. The most lethal and quickest way of doing this would be by dropping the bomb so of course they supported Truman’s decision. Also, a lot of prominent military figures were completely against the bomb and agreed that Japan had pretty much already surrendered at the point. Lots of officers and commanders said that the US did not need to drop the bomb to defeat the Japanese for military purposes (see my initial argument). I think that it is true that Truman wanted to end the war quickly, but more lives would have been saved if he had actually taken the time to listen to the conditions of the Japanese and tried to negotiate with them before acting. Side: not justified
Hi Cici, I feel that Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb was wrong. You are correct in pointing out that event caused "chaos and controversy". I don't believe that his use of the bomb was "accepted" by most individuals nor was it's use strictly for military reasons (ending the war). I do not believe most US citizens knew enough about this type of warfare for it to be accepted. Truman based his decision to use the bomb on the fact that "the bomb was a weapon, and weapons are meant to be used". Yes, he wanted to end the war but I believe that he also wanted to show others the United States was a powerful world force - the "don't mess with us" attitude. Yes, war brings casualties, both soldiers and civilians, but to consciously bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, areas that contained primarily civilians was horrific. Yes, it did bring an end to the war - who wanted to deal with a nation that was going to resort to using an atomic bomb? However, Japan was going to surrender. If we had held out a little longer and compromised a little, the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bomb. I do not believe that Japan would have ultimately moved forward and invaded the United States. We were already known as a formidable power to be reckoned with, along with the support from our Allied Nations, an invasion seems unlikely. Side: not justified
Yes the United States was justified in using the atomic bomb to end World War II. They were justified because the alternative to dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima would have been an invasion on the United States by the Japanese. It is estimated that 500,000 Americans lives would have been lost if this invasion ended up happening and millions more of Japanese lives would have been lost. Also, rather than invading Japan themselves, America decided to save their lives and drop the bomb instead of going there themselves and losing their lives. Today, Japan is a prosperous nation. According to someone who had the opportunity to visit Hiroshima it is a very strong and prosperous nation. Children come to the bombing site to learn about it and pay their respects. The area is decorated with thousands of colorful paper cranes and it is no longer a city of mourning. It appears as though the tragedy that took place actually brought a city together that now thrives. Side: justified
At the time the United States had the Atomic bomb, Japan had almost no navel army and were pushed back to the Nation's main islands. The Japanese innovation was only believe to happen right after the Attack on Pearl Harbor and not during the Atomic bombing. Many say that Japan has healed from the bombing but it could never be forgotten. With around 3000 Americans died on 9/11 and we still remember the pain we felt. Killing civilians is never the answer to anything doesn't matter who is doing it. Side: not justified
Yes, I believe the United States was justified in using the atomic bomb during World War II. While the end of World War II was ending, many people questioned President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many individuals think he could of used some other means to get the Japanese to surrender, yet Truman justifies his decision. In the beginning of the war most Americans accepted the fact that atomic bombs would end the war faster, not having a problem with killing over half the enemy seeing as they are the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor. Although as the war went on some began to question Truman if the bomb was “saving lives”, coming up with theories of their own. In the end Truman justified his answer to using the atomic bomb on Japan was for the purpose of saving more American lives, and to ultimately end the war quickly in order to prevent a destructive invasion. There are two main arguments that criticized Truman’s actions. One being of the Revisionists, people who attempt to revise common perceptions in history. Basically, these people believed he had ulterior motives, one of not saving lives. They also think that Truman should of chose many of the available ways to get the Japanese to surrender other than the bombing of two cities, and if they making of the atomic bomb was not justified, Truman could of faced up to two billion dollars in debt. On the other hand, many individuals as well as veterans thought Truman’s decision was entirely for military purposes, ending the war quickly would return soldiers back home and the women on the home front back to their normal lives and jobs. Side: justified
The thing is that the human cost of the bombings was the price that had to be paid to avoid the potentially far higher cost in lives that would have occurred had the US decided to invade the Japanese home islands. The decision by the US to drop atomic bombs on Japan was based on two factors, The first factor was the desire to save American lives, the second was to demonstrate and warn the Soviet Union of the power of the US military. By bringing the war to an end quickly the US saved American lives. It may even have saved Japanese lives, but this depends on how long Japanese forces would have continued fighting. Do I agree on a moral stand point, no, but I do believe at the time that it was a necessary evil. Side: justified
What I think is important to consider is that Truman and his advisers did not even try to plan a land attack. He was simply advised that it would kill many more American Soldiers. Later, they learned that Japan was nearing a surrender anyways. A small American land invasion could have been good enough to end the war, and little to no civilians would have died. The actually American death toll would probably not be nearly as high as it was originally estimated. Side: not justified
I completely agree with your argument. From a moral standpoint, no it was not right but in the end it showed Japan what the United States is capable of, and I believe ultimately is saved many lives and stopped us from another war coming. Although many people who think it was not a justified action might believe it killed more lives than saved some. At this place and time in history I do believe Truman made a good point and jut proved that America is an extremely powerful country. Side: justified
1
point
Although the dropping of the Atomic bomb caused thousands of innocent people to die, and left to areas of Japan nearly inhospitable, it was a justified action. We were steadily making progress towards an invasion of mainland Japan by way of "island hopping". Japan had been preparing for an invasion and had dug in, making an invasion a suicide mission. We had been experimenting with a new weapon called a Atomic Bomb, which would clearly cause extreme collateral damage. Although the dropping of the bomb would mean thousands of Japanese dying, the alternative was an extended war and an uncountable loss of American life. This decision couldn't be made with haste, but we were at war and had to make a tough call. In the end we chose to save American lives and hope for a quick resolution to the war. Side: justified
I would argue that innocent people do die in times of war, but there was no need for Truman to order the two atomic bombs to be dropped in Japan. Japan was on the verge of surrendering. There's no justification for bombing innocent people. I'm not saying that we should have bombed military personal either. I believe the President wanted the war to end sooner rather than later but his motives were more towards showing off our new weapons to the Soviets. Side: not justified
1
point
I agree with you because at this time, Japan was our enemy from all the issues with Pearl Harbor and the Japanese attack on America. President Truman knew that this would be an effective way of ending the war in a timely manner and knew it would cause casualties on the opposing enemies. Of course he knew that it would harm Japanese lives but it would also keep Americans from loosing their lives due to the war. I must say that there was probably a better way to go about ending the war, hopefully one that wouldn't have cost so many innocent lives but when you control your whole country and you must decide on what will help protect your country, the decision was essentially justified. Side: justified
Regardless of our emotions and ethnic ties, this was a decision not made by us. The leaders we had then had different pressures than we had now. Today we benefit from the lessons learned from past warfare. The atomic bomb would have been inevitably created by some power, and eventually used. It is human nature to create then recreate. The beautiful thing to come about so much destruction is that the events have not been repeated. The goal of the dropping of nuclear bombs was to bring a world war to a standstill. It was terrible, but all is fair in love and war, right? I am American. I have been to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I also served in the United States Marine Corps. I have an intimate understanding about this. I have seen it from both sides. There is no doubt it was necessary, the same way all of Europe had to unite against Germany and Italy. The main point is why did negotiations breakdown and war start. If we are civilized enough to allow a war to begin, we cannot deny the ends that justify a sanctioned means. Side: justified
1
point
So your argument was that it would have been done by someone else anyway. I think this a little more than a lesson learned. The people that marred by this bomb were outcasts to the rest of their own society. I don't think that it was a lesson learned. If it were, would we still be searching for weapons of mass destruction? I think not. The only thing that was learned is that you can knock out a wide area including everything in it. This will be knowledge will be used to someone's advantage one day. Hopefully it won't be in my lifetime. Side: not justified
0
points
|
It is impossible to justify any action which directly causes loss of human life, especially when that loss of life is the purpose behind the action. Not only were hundreds of thousands of lives lost, but many weren't even soldiers, they were civilian losses! Side: not justified
1
point
1
point
The decision to drop the bomb was a difficult one to make. The fact is that many more civilians would be affected than soldiers. We didn't attack military installations, we targeted cities. The other option was a land invasion, which Japan had been preparing for throughout the war. It would've caused extreme loss of American life, and had no guarantee of ending the war. Even though dropping the bomb was a savage act against Japan, not just their military, it was absolutely justified because the other option wasn't as concrete. The fact is we were at war with an enemy who attacked us on our own turf, and we couldn't be afraid to take decisive action to end the war immediately without the further risk of losing American lives. Side: justified
I do understand what you mean by the loss of human life being unjustified, but you have to understand why the decision was made to use the bomb. The American government and military had to make a decision whether or not to allow for the further loss of American lives. After the bloody fighting from island to island the invasion of Japan grew closer and so did the ferocity of the Japanese to protect the mainland of Japan. The Japanese started even more aggressively with the use of suicide attacks. The American High Command estimated the invasion could cost America more than one million lives to take mainland Japan. It is also important to note that the Japanese did not surrender even after the first atomic bomb was used. It would take the use of a second atomic bomb to successfully bring Japan to surrender. With that in mind imagine how the invasion of Japan would have gone and how many more American and Japanese military and civilians lives could have been lost to finally bring Japan to surrender. Side: justified
1
point
I agree it really is impossibleto justify actions causing loss of life but there would have been many more lives lost. And as you said not only were the soldiers lives lost, but also thousands of civilians lives lost as well. If the bomb had not been dropped there would have been hundreds of thousands more that would have been lost. It is terrible the war even began but everything happens for a reason, so the dropping of the atomic bomb had to happen as ugly as it was it came to that decision and it had to be done in order to keep others alive. Side: not justified
It is hard to stomach the pain and suffering that those suffered in Japan from these weapons of mass destruction. Yet, I cannot agree that we cannot justify the decision to nuke Japan. We as Americans support this in our own lives. By being citizens and paying taxes to the same government we are supporting their past, present, and future actions. I agree the loss of human life is tragic, but humans have been killing each other since time immemorial. This can even be observed in our closest genetic relative the Chimpanzee who can be powerful and brutal among other characteristics. The fact of the matter is that life is a live and learn process. If we are so truly against nuclear weapons, we should not support a government that maintains a stockpile on U.S. submarines abroad and at missile silos at home. Also we cannot be unhappy that the cost of wisdom is expensive, but we must be progressive to improve diplomacy to the highest levels of success so that the same mistakes are never repeated. If you do not like this fact be the change you want to see. Side: justified
I agree with your reason for the Atomic Bomb, not being justified. There had to be another strategy to stop the opponents from conflict. Also there had to be another form of plan to protect the United States rather then resorting to the worst form of strategy of dropping an atomic bomb on a city that was pointed out because it had no destruction from the conflict surrounding other parts of Japan. Side: justified
I do not believe that the United States was justified in using the atomic bomb to end World War II. President Truman's mindset was "the bomb was a weapon, and weapons are meant to be used" - and he did not hesitate using it. It seemed like he made this decision for a couple of reasons; first, to show the world what a powerful nation the United States was so that other nations would think twice about challenging us, and secondly, to end the war. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima because it had not yet suffered any damage. It seemed there was no consideration given that it was a highly populated area, that not only housed soldiers but innocent civilians. Since it was a fairly new technology the long term effects were not known. So there were deaths and side effects occurring long after the actual dropping of the bomb due to the radiation. Japan had been close to surrendering, but because the United States/Allies demanded "unconditional surrender" they were not willing to compromise. It is unfortunate that there wasn't a little more dialog between the nations and that Truman didn't show a little more patience and restraint before making the decision to drop the atomic bomb, not only once - but twice. Side: not justified
I could not have said it better myself! How can you justify a President who's mindset is "the bomb was a weapon, and weapons are meant to be used". This kind of mindset can only come from a man that has no heart! Indeed it was new technology and because of this, many scientist that worked on the bomb urged the President to do a practice round, so that they would know the outcomes of it. But did he listen? No! He did not listen and he went about his way because he was in a hurry to use the weapon that was "made to use". The US indeed demanded a unconditional surrender and this is just outrageous! Because of a minor detail, some Japanese were murdered! This could have been avoided and no one on this planet should have the ability to go about something like this! President Truman should have been stopped! Side: not justified
There were more reasons for dropping the bomb. The main was that Japan would invade the United States and half a million Americans would die. Since an atomic bomb had never been used, we could actually see the effects of it after one was finally dropped and another has never ever been used since. Additionally, the US and Hiroshima actually came together after the war to help rebuild the city and aid the hurt victims of the bomb. Side: justified
They were nearing an end to the worst global war in history and something needed to be done to defeat Japan. If the United States just invaded Japan it would have resulted in the death of as many as 250,000 American and many Japanese. Although many civilians were killed in the attack, many civilians were also killed by Japan and the Axis throughout World War II. The dropping of the atomic bomb was not the first civilians were a casualty of war. It seems as though regaurdless civilians would have died whether it was by atomic bomb or invading of Japan. With the attacks on Pearl Harbor Japan neeed to be invaded or we would be at risk. Side: not justified
1
point
President did in fact make the decision to drop the bomb for both reasons you mentioned. The first was to show what a powerful nation the United States was so that other natons would think twice before challengind us and the second was indeed to end the War. It had to be done. Hiroshima had the bomb dropped in that city most likely because the General and big wigs of the Japanese were known for living in that area. The Japanese were fanatics who tortured and ate the livers of the Americans. The civilians were committing suicide rather than get captured by the Americans; these people were not going to surrender. The bombing had to occur in order to stop the War. Side: justified
I definitely agree with you in that we should not have dropped the bomb just because it was a weapon, as President Truman pointed out. The atomic bomb was and is more destructive than any other weapon in the world . . . which is why i believe it hasnt been used since wwii. The one thing I thought to point out from your argument is that you said, "since it was a fairly new technology the long term effects were not known." That's definitely true. But I think that is one of the reasons why Truman's decision can actually be justified. If he had realized the ramifications of his decision at the time, i doubt he would have just cavalierly dropped the bomb. There was no way of knowing this side effect until a bomb was dropped so that is really the one point that you make that i feel actually works in truman's favor. Side: not justified
2
points
Morally, the U.S., and more specifically President Truman, was not justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although it is true that an all out invasion of Japan would have caused thousands of American casualties, it is not necessarily true that there should be that same number of casualties, if not more, in Japan. President Truman and his constituents could have established a meeting with the Japanese, or at least attempted to, in order to find another way to end the war. Many have argued that President Truman was rushed and that he was forced to make a decision quickly. However, dropping a bomb that would lead to complete, utter, destruction of innocent human lives and to thriving land is not a decision that should be taken lightly. The effects of those two bombs would be felt long after the war ended. Historians have cited that Japan was ready to surrender and had this been the case, President Truman was certainly not justified in dropping the bomb. The world should not operate solely on the maxim that the end justifies the means, or else each individual would be operating solely on their first inclinations with no consequences. Society does not and should not operate that way. History is meant to serve as a learning opportunity, a chance to learn from mistakes made in the past. Since the dropping of the atomic bomb, the debates over nuclear power have continued well into today precisely for the reason to avoid what happened on that day. Side: not justified
The military leaders wanted at least one more military victory before putting together some sort of "surrender package", but outside of that surrender was imminent. The Japanese people no longer wanted war and for a while it even looked like the emperor might sooner lose his power to a revolution than to the war. There's evidence as early as June of 1945 stating that Japan reached out to the soviets about surrendering under the condition that the emperor could keep his position. One month later, the Potsdam declaration was released demanding Japan's unconditional surrender, to which the Japanese responded by saying they would surrender, but only under the condition that they keep their emperor. So yes, Japan was going to surrender and president Truman knew they would surrender, but Truman didn't agree to their condition so he bombed them. The emperor still wouldn't step down as a condition of surrender so they were bombed again three days later. Once again, the emperor refused to step down, so America agrees to this condition so long as the emperor agrees to be a subject of the allies in Japan. Japan surrenders. Now personally, this tells me Truman didn't particularly care either way about the emperor and he was just looking for an excuse to test his bombs, but that's just my opinion. Side: justified
1
point
Japan had agreed to surrender, but they wanted to keep their emperor. America would have none of that so they bombed Japan. Now, if you think Japan wanting to keep their emperor was enough to justify atomizing 250,000 civilians, fine. You are one sick bastard, but fine. Side: not justified
If Japan was about to surrendor why didn't they surrender after Truman offered the Potsdam Declaration? That was the perfect time for them to have surrendered. Yes, it is a tragedy that so many lives were lost but how many more could have been lost continuing on with the war? Truman did not take pride in his decision to drop the bomb as he said "The atom bomb was no great decision. It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness." Side: justified
They wanted to keep their emperor. I don't think jumping straight to nuking them is a reasonable counter-offer. There was no need to continue the war at all. Just surrender negotiations followed by the end of the war. The end. Actions speak louder than words. Side: not justified
1
point
I agree wth you. Who is to say they were going to finally surrender? They had proven to be relentless in their fighting. They would fight to the death i.e. Kamikaze attacks and their ritual suicides. Thousands of American soldiers' lives were lost in the battles of Okinawa an Iwo Jima. The Japanese had underground tunnels, bunkers and pillboxes with the intention of inflicting the most possible damage in the event of military invasion. Even though they knew defeat was inevitible, they wanted to take out as many American soldiers as possible. Why let that happen if it doesnt need to? Side: justified
Japan would have agreed to a conditional surrender before the bomb was dropped. All they wanted was to keep the same executive power in office. After the 100,000 plus were killed and Japan surrenders unconditionally the United States lets Japan continue under the same rule! None of this had to happen. Japan was on its knees with no chance of victory over the U.S., let alone the entire group of allies. Side: not justified
First of all, morally speaking, it was unacceptable to drop the atomic bomb. The bomb’s purpose was to kill innocent people. While it was completely wrong of the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor was a military base and they attacked it to weaken our navy; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not. Thousands of civilians lived there so the target became the people and not the military. Even high ranking military personal of the United States said that the atomic bomb was not necessary. Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, is quoted saying, “The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender”. Dwight D. Eisenhower agreed with, "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." At this point the Japanese were ready to surrender so long as the emperor could keep his position on the throne. The US was just stubborn and didn’t see this as “complete surrender”. The US acted too hastily in the decision to drop the bomb without considering the repercussions or possible negotiations. The United States also did not wait long enough after Hiroshima to bomb Nagasaki. The death tolls weren’t even in and the US didn’t wait for Japan to respond before launching the second atomic bomb. The US had several options, but again the immediately acted and dropped the second bomb. This really shows how merciless the United States was. Side: not justified
1
point
1
point
I agree that it was morally wrong to drop the atomic bomb. President Truman and other American officials were aware of the utter destruction that the bomb would cause and how many innocent civilian lives would be lost from it. It is still difficult for me to believe that there was absolutely no other way to end the war then to kill 100,000 within a few minutes. Had the Japanese been ready to surrender, as many have argued, then his decision was definitely not justified. I also do not believe that a decision this grave should have been made in haste. Not only was the first bomb catastrophic, but the second bomb also had terrible consequences. Side: not justified
1
point
I think you do make a good point in that morally speaking, the decision was not necessarily acceptable. President Truman did have a number of options to choose from to end the war, and dropping the bomb may not have been the best one. But to support Truman's decision, it would end the war quickly. I think that the ideas floating around that maybe Truman had an ulterior motive or that maybe he was seeking revenge and wanted to feel superior to other countries and show the kind of weaponry the U.S. had may possibly have been true, but as the President he was just trying to get his country out of a bad situation. So although I do believe Truman's decision was, in a sense, justified, you do make a few very valid points. Side: not justified
I am against atomic bomb .................................... I am afraid one day it will end this civilization Side: not justified
1
point
Honestly it probably will. The fact that if we are alerted as to one firing upon us triggers the firing right back is a scary concept. I think that no one should be able to own a weapon that could ultimately put an end to the world. Who is really trustworthy? Our Allies? What happens when we want something that they have? It will turn into and every country for itself in the near future. Side: not justified
1
point
1
point
No I do believe that dropping the atomic bob was necessary. I am grateful that it was not my decision to make. I do not believe that innocent people deserved to lose their lives, nor do I believe the devastation of the aftermath is something that any human being should endure. It was not those peoples fault that their government angered ours. The reasoning that was given was that it ultimately saved American lives that could have been lost through warfare. That is not a good enough reason. The amount of suffering that followed was not only life altering but affected many generations of people. This could have been dealt with in a much better way. Side: not justified
The usage of the atomic bomb on Japan or even the usage of the atomic bomb is not justified and in my opinion it will never be justified! So many innocent people died because of the atomic bombs that where dropped on the Japanese cities. To think that those people were just going on about their day, with their families and loves ones, and within seconds, everything was gone and they were destroyed! There is just no justice to that at all. It was not even a necessity because Japan was ready to surrender on the condition that their Emperor Hirohito could keep his spot on the throne. President Truman did not think that this surrender was unconditional, so he decided to kill innocent people whom government was going to be of no harm anymore. It was a very bad decision and it started a terrible trend among countries, and now we have many countries with the ability to do what we did to Japan. This is a very scary thought to endure! Side: not justified
1
point
Unfortunately, in all wars, innocent civilians get bombed and killed. Until it is allowed to just stealthily go in and assasinate horrible dictators, that is what will happen. It seems that the dropping of the bomb showed the world what a horrible weapon it is and NOBODY wants to use it, and thankfully, nobody has. Side: justified
Nobody wants to use it???! Have you been watching the news for the past couple of years? If we think that nobody wants to use it, then why are we so scared of the fact that Iran has nuclear weapons? There is no calmness to this because it has happened in the past and America has demonstrated this by the wrong doing of President Truman! Remember that if the lesson is not learned, then history repeats itself! Side: not justified
Many can argue wether the japanese deserved to be nuked for bombing Pearl Harbor. Many say yes and others no. In other to find the answer we should put it in to perspective. After American forces bombed Iraq for reasons i still cannot understand, would Iraq be justified to nuke America? would we the civilian population be punish for the wrong doings of the Bush Administration? I can understand bombing strategic military posts but purposely aiming at civilian population and causing mass murder, that would make us no more better than the Nazis. The killing of innocent people is all i'm against and usage of the Atomic Bomb on civilian population was one of the lowest points of American History. Side: not justified
I have to say dropping the bomb was unjustified at the time. If Japan's allies were still a threat then I could see that using the bomb could threaten the Axis' power, but at the time the bomb was dropped Japan had no chance of winning a war. One of Truman's justifications of the drop was that Japan did not agree to an unconditional surrender. Japan refused because they wanted to keep their ruler in power, but after the bomb was dropped an the unconditional surrender was reached we ended up leaving with the same executive power as before. It was a senseless bombing that, yes, struck fear in the heart of other nations, but also gives reason for other countries to justify using nukes on us in the future. Side: not justified
Actually it has not given other countries justification for using nuclear weapons on the United States in the future. We know this because one has never been used since. Also they are aware that the US has to power and resources to fight back with their own weapons or anticipate the attack and have their own aimed and ready to go. If Japan was not going to surrender, then everyone believed that there was going to be an invasion on the US so the United States did all they thought they could do and decided to drop the bomb. Side: justified
1
point
I don’t think that Truman should have dropped the bomb on Japan. Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria. America’s refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance. Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki. Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons. Side: not justified
If Japan was ready to give up they should have signed the agreement the U.S. made or made it more clear that they were ready to end it. We will never know wether or not the Japanese would have continued on in the war but I think Truman made the decision he had to make at that time. He wasn't proud of it or just waiting to throw the atomic bomb out there, and there are probably hidden things that were going on that the citizens didn't know about. Yes, many lives were lost but many were saved as well. Side: justified
The United States was not justified in using the atomic bomb to end World War II. The use of the bomb was inhumane and resulted in thousands of deaths of innocent civilians. There is a reason was the United States is the only country in the world to this day to deploy nuclear weapons. They have deadly and lasting costs. Not only were there the immediate deaths of thousands of civilians, but thousands more died in the months to come after the bomb was dropped due to the radiation produced from it. Additionally, thousands more lives were lost even further down the like during the Korean War because of many suffering from starvation due to loss of so much land and sources of food. No potential loss of lives from a Japanese invasion outweighs the long lasting effects of the tragic dropping of an atomic bomb on another country. The United State's decision also played a large role in igniting the Cold War. Side: not justified
While it is true that the bomb did have lasting effects, it would have been nearly impossible to determine the effects of radiation before the bombs had been dropped. While it would be a much more inhumane form of warfare today because of that knowledge, the aftermath of the nuclear effects were most likely not predicted before the bomb was dropped. I saw a video last week of five American men standing near ground zero of one of the atomic bomb tests; had we known about the medical conditions that could be caused by radiation, it is unlikely that those men would be allowed to be at ground zero with no protection. Side: justified
The United States had no right to drop such a powerful weapon on so many innocent people. Not only did the atomic bomb kill civilians, it also destroyed their city that was virtually unharmed prior to the bomb. While it was believed that they saved American soldiers, no real plan was set out for a land invasion. A land attack using American militia could have been successful. Also, America came out of the war looking like a bully. Being the first to drop an atomic bomb left the country feared by other nations. It also sent the country into the Cold War. Side: not justified
Although you make a point, I believe it wasn't the intentions to kill "innocent" people, but to make a point that America is powerful and in the end save more lives at the end of the war. If nothing was done, the war would keep going on, more people dying. No war is justifiable, but Truman did what he thought was best for America at the time, I don't think they looked like a bully but more powerful, knowing what our country is capable of such a thing. You make a point when you say it did lead to the Cold War, but to end this war this is what needed to be done. Side: justified
In my opinion, the main argument in support of dropping the bombs was to save American and to end the war. Typically, the main argument against dropping the bombs were the fact that these were horrific bombs with terrible repercussions. After seeing photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm convinced that the U.S. was not justified in dropping the bombs. I believe President Truman's decision to drop the bombs was 1. to save American lives, 2. seek revenge on the Japanese for the bombing of Pearl Harbor and 3. demonstrate our military power to the Soviet Union. Granted, number 1 is the only justifiable reason but that depends on how long the Japanese would have continued fighting once we invaded. That to me was the only legitimate reason for dropping the bombs. To save lives and end the war but I also strongly believe that reasons #2 & #3 were a driving force in the decision which makes this unjustifiable. Side: not justified
1
point
I think President Truman had other options to stop the animosity between the U.S. And the Japanese. The United States wanted to establish firmly that they were the dominant world power, Truman basically proved it by sacrificing two entire cities full of innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with Japan's military armed forced. These two Japanese cities where picked out because they had been the least affected cities throughout the war. The same thing that the U.S. was helping to fight against during the conflict with Hitler and his massacre against "inferior races", now America was doing the same. I think it was unecassary another method had to be sought, but then again maybe we probably wouldn't be the country it is today, if that event had not occured. Side: not justified
I do not think that Truman was justified in dropping the atomic bomb. The fact that he said that "it is a weapon so it should be used as a weapon" for the reason why it was used is not justified. I feel like it did got the war to end and some good things came out of it, but it was not worth the innocent lives that were taken. There were other ways that this war could have come to an end and more needed to be done before just dropping the atomic bomb. It was a risky decision because the other countries could have easily retaliated created an even bigger war. If all presidents just dropped bombs because we have them readily available the United States would have started many wars. Truman and the United States simply were not justified in dropping the atomic bomb because it was not the last resort needed to stop the war and there was no need for retaliation in this form. Side: not justified
When the US dropped the Atomic Bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a combined total of between150,000 to 250,000 people died from the direct effect of the bomb, not to mention the many injured, the structural damage to the cities, and the nasty effects of radiation that haunted Japan for many years after the explosions. War has a different code of morality, and that is understandable, but is also true that Japan had no more chance of coming back. For a simple analogy, the US had Japan locked on an arm bar, and knew they were going to tap out, but broke their arm anyway. Moreover, not only the US knew they were going to surrender, but some scholars defend that they already had. The brutal truth is that the United States government, most likely viewed the japanese bombing as an opportunity to show the USSR they had a weapon of power unheard at the time, making the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not the last act of WWII but the first of the Cold War Side: not justified
This is a great argument! I too believe that there were ways that the Atomic bomb could have been avoided. It was not necessary to destroy the lives of so many people, and because of this power struggle that was going on in these times it definitely seems just like a show of power. In the text it did not say that they knew they were going to surrender, but there was for sure a sign that the United States had more power at this time. If they United States had simply invaded the Japanese most likely would have surrendered not long afterward. Your argument perfectly segues into the Cold War and I agree completely. This was the start of the Cold War because it started the show of power from the countries who believed they were able to compete. I think that it is really sad that we actually used the atomic bomb, instead of just using it as a threat, as the Cold War would do. Side: not justified
I can see why it can be 'justified' in loose terms- it was unleashed with the intention of saving lives there were over 20,000 American lives at stake and not to mention it saved Japanese lives as well, an estimated 20 million would have been killed had the American troops invaded Kyushu and who's to say they wouldn't have acted first given the chance? However, in my mind it cannot ever be fully justified. It was mass genocide because not all who were killed were military personnel, it was inhumane and those who survived either succumbed to radiation poisoning or were impaired some how for the rest of their lives or suffered from cancer and other bomb-related illnesses. Truman called it "the greatest thing in history" but I ask at what cost? Let's face it he wanted to get one over on the Germans and this next quote from him supports what I have put forward: "we have won the race of discovery against the Germans, we have used it in order to shorten the agony of war" And that may be so but I personally cannot ever see a way to fully justifying the atrocities caused by the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Side: not justified
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
