CreateDebate


Debate Info

33
30
Yes No
Debate Score:63
Arguments:62
Total Votes:66
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (28)
 
 No (24)

Debate Creator

LizziexLaura(4276) pic



Was the bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?

Do you believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary?

Yes

Side Score: 33
VS.

No

Side Score: 30
2 points

I am really sorry to say this, but sort of. The Japanese believed very much that they needed to keep fighting, and there are indications that they would not give up. The last Japanese soldier to give up after WWII was in the 70s.

Supporting Evidence: Japanese Holdout (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Yes
1 point

I partially agree because two bombs were not necessity. I would approve one, it was enough

Side: No
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

It seems like that is wrong because they didn't give up right after the first bomb. How long do you give a country to respond to a nuclear attack? How do we know that waiting any longer would not have led to an attack on our allies?

Side: Yes
Zareena(59) Disputed
1 point

You sick, misguided person. It is never okay to abuse the sanctity of human life

Side: Yes
2 points

Japan is all about honor. They really were against backing down. It was either war with them and lose many more lives, particularly for the U.S., or do this, simply ending the war. We did warn them before hand. "Surrender or DIE!" xD I don't think bombing both of the cities were needed, but doing what we did was the easiest and least 'violent' way to end the war.

Side: Yes
1 point

This one is hard to call. The bombing of Hiroshima and the invasion of Manchuria by the USSR were almost on the same day, so we don't know for sure the bomb is what made Japan surrender.

Side: Yes

To win? Yes, I think so. They had a do or die spirit and would not give up at all.

Also, and this may not be good justification but it is a reason. The U.S. wanted to test their newest weapon and who better than an enemy nation that won't admit defeat.

Side: Yes
1 point

The Japanese swore they were not going to surrender so we did what was necessary by getting them to surrender.

Side: Yes

The war would have carried on had not those bombs took place. Even survivors of the bombing have stated that they understood the nescscity of the bombs as tragic as they were. Keep in mind that the Japanese government was willing to continue fighting the war after the first bomb. That shows how much effort it would have taken to end any other way.

Side: Yes
1 point

The Japanese Government refused to surrender before the bombing. The Japanese were known to be relentlessly devoted to their country. Why sacrifice the lives of so many more Americans to achieve the same end goal? Sure, Japanese families were devastated, at the sake of both American and Japanese families being devastated.

Side: Yes

yes and no but more yes it would have been another dday kind of invasion and the bombs ended the war quickly after the second one went off because they no longer had the materials to keep fighting after be destryoed the 2 cities it made it a lot less bloody then it probably would have been.... and if they had the bombs they would have completely wipped out america

Side: Yes

Sigh...yes, I think was necessary. When I was first exposed to the incident, I was strongly against it, but after having done so much research, I think I've been compelled to switch sides. I mean, there are so many arguments on the pro side--the fact that the Japanese truly would not back down; the fact that either they or the Soviets would have nuked us first if they had the capacity; the fact that the war had gone on so long; and so on. I don't have the energy to go on now, but to sum it up, the answer is a definite yes, especially when morality is removed from the issue.

Side: Yes
1 point

yes because if they did not the jap would not surrender and WW2 would not end

Side: Yes
0 points

The stupid fools deserved to die for bombing our blessed Pearl Harbour and invading our pet Polish friends

Side: Yes
Cuaroc(8828) Clarified
1 point

Don't you think America is Prodgenious?

Side: Yes
Zareena(59) Disputed
1 point

america is a great country

Side: No
Elvira(3445) Disputed
1 point

Bombing a military base should not provoke bombing cities, and Germany invaded Poland, not Japan.

Side: No
Zareena(59) Disputed
1 point

i dont need to justify myself because america is the best country in the world

Side: Yes
2 points

Im kinda on the fence about this but since im against human beings killing other human beings, im going no.

Side: No
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
1 point

I agree with you, I don't think fighting and killing is really needed but in some cases there is a lesser of two evils.

Not a perfect scenario but take this one for example, a mugger is trying to steal from and kill you and your spouse, in that situation it's best for you to defend yourself, wouldn't you agree.

Side: Yes
Zareena(59) Disputed
1 point

Some people deserve to die so that Narnia can flourish in all its might

Side: Yes
2 points

Nope, they could have let off a demonstration in the sea, but the Americans wanting to prove their manliness, they went ahead and tossed them on two major cities. And no it is not a revenge thing for Pearl harbor, far more people died in the atomic attacks, and Pearl harbor was a military base, and given the Americans were restricting the flow of products in to Japan, effectively starving them, I wouldn't say it was 'unprovoked' either. America did what they always do, showing off to the world in a macho way, shouting all the,

"Round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the bastards!"

As the great Kenny Everett once said.

Side: No
skymto(113) Disputed
1 point

So America should have allowed the Japanese to continue their invasion of China and the Soviet Union? Ever heard of the Bataan Death March...or human experimentation, chemical warfare they were using in Southeast Asia before their resources were cut off by America. A lot happened before Pearl Harbor that led to the eventual bombing.

Side: Yes
Jungelson(3931) Disputed
2 points

Are you kidding me, the Americans didn't bomb the Japanese because of what they did in china 15 odd years before! And did you completely ignore what I said about showing them a demonstration of the bomb?

Side: No
2 points

Whenever a human possesses the power of the sun and uses it, it's never necessary and in fact is irresponsible.

Regardless of the notion, "Kill X, amount, save another X, amount".

What America did was wrong, plain and simple.

War is war, however, the bombing of Japan was not War. That is called annihilation. That is precisely called "humans playing god".

Humans are already a destructive species. Humans do not need to have, nor have needed to use, nuclear and/or atomic weaponry.

Side: No
1 point

We did warn them though . Also we were still in war.

Side: Yes
2 points

HAH! So warning is okay for a human to use the power of the sun!? LOL

{}XXXXXXXXXX}{::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>

I think not

Side: Yes
1 point

One would of probably made them surrender doing 2 was a bit overkill.

Side: No
HoldTheMayo(5908) Clarified
1 point

But one didn't make them surrender, at least after three days. Did they just need more time?

Side: Yes
Cuaroc(8828) Clarified
2 points

they were likely in shock after seeing what the bomb did so it's not surprising they didn't surrender right away.

Side: Yes
Zareena(59) Disputed
1 point

"Doing two"

Well, we know that America is the land of the players.

Side: Yes

No, and it is sad that the American government came to that conclusion in the end. Was there really no other way? :/

Side: No
AREKKUSU(275) Disputed
1 point

Japan was really against backing down. The only other option was full out war, which would have been even worse for both sides. We threatened and warned them that we were going to bomb them, but they wouldn't back down, so this was the outcome. Can you think of something we could have done instead?

Side: Yes
BookBird101(575) Disputed
2 points

I can understand that, but I just feel like there should have been a solution that was less dramatic than full out war, and less immoral than an atomic bomb.. I'm no expert on conflict and whatnot, so I can't really come up with any realistic solution that could have worked at the time. All I can say is that I wish so many innocent lives didn't have to be taken like that.

Side: No
1 point

The US provoked Japan into bombing pearl harbour. http://mises.org/daily/6312/

They could have been more diplomatic.

Side: No
1 point

In my experience it doesn't really matter how much shit is getting talked, the person who throws the first punch is the one who started the fight, regardless of any provocation. In this instance it wasn't just taking a punch in a fistfight, though, it was the gruesome deaths of thousands of Americans in a surprise bombing run. Regardless of what the US was doing pre-Pearl Harbor, Japan was the one that escalated the US/Japan conflict to the point of death and destruction.

Side: Yes
1 point

Was the twin towers necessary? Was the blitz necessary?

No, it was just ignorant stuck up politicians letting people die over their disagreements instead of debating it peacefully.

Side: No

No. Innocent women and children were killed, so, it was not necessary.

Side: No