Do you think the atomic bomb should have been dropped
Lets go back in history when in WWII the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. Now when you make a post give some facts on it there is no point if you don't prove any of your point
yes it was necessary
Side Score: 7
|
 |
no there was better options
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
The war in Europe had just ended, at great cost and loss of lives. Our nation was straining to maintain the rationing of many materials. The US death count was reaching 400,000. The Japanese were showing no signs of giving up their attempt to control the Pacific. It had been determined that bringing the war to a swift end, would save hundreds of thousands of American lives. We warned Japan of our intention BEFORE we hit Hiroshima. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on Aug 6, 1945. The next bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on Aug 9, 1945. Japan’s Emperor Hirohito announced his country’s unconditional surrender in WWII on August 15. Japan surrendered on Sept 2, 1945. The war had ended 21 days after Hiroshima. IMO this was the best choice in a far less that perfect set of choices. Side: yes it was necessary
1
point
The US wanted to end the war quickly, the alternative was a mainland invasion of Japan, which could of potentially cost hundreds of thousands of US casualties. Which where much more important to the US than Japanese civilian casualties. They targeted mid sized industrial cities. At least they did not nuke Tokyo! Side: yes it was necessary
|
2
points
You've heard of the term Kamikaze, I'm sure? This is a japanese word that most of the world is familiar with. It translates to 'Divine Wind;' the fervor that the japanese military fought with was close to religious, if not entirely religious. Threatening death is ineffective against an enemy that is already willing to throw his life away to strike a blow. Kamikaze tactics devastated the bulk of our navy at Pearl Harbor, leaving us in a very tenuous position. In addition to having an almost-crippled Navy at the time, we found striking military targets to be ineffective. Surrender is typical amongst most military forces when overwhelmed, but the japanese had a proclivity for fighting to the last man at every stage, bleeding the enemy the entire time. IF we could have succeeded in a conventional war against Japan under those circumstances, the death toll would have been far greater than hiroshima and nagasaki + the prior military engagements. Threatening death is pointless when the threatened does not fear death. I'm not saying that using the atomic bombs was justified, mind you- just explaining why non-military targets were used in this case. And let's not forget that this was all before the Geneva Convention, and that much of what went into the Geneva Convention took this into account. Side: yes it was necessary
Hiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. Major Charles Sweeney of USAAF 393rd Squadron piloted the second mission on Aug 9. Kokura was the primary target and was a much greater military target when compared to the secondary target, Nagasaki. Kokura was 70% cloud covered. Sweeney turned to the second target. The city of Nagasaki was one of the most important sea ports in southern Japan, due to its significance as a major war production center for warships, munitions, and other equipment. Side: yes it was necessary
Why did they need to bomb the city? They could have taken out military targets separately, like the Japanese did with Pearl Harbour. The nuclear bomb was part shock tactic, part experiment. It wasn't a sound decision. Japan was looking for a way to surrender without losing face, anyway. Side: no there was better options
|
