Was the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the right thing to do?
This has been one of the most controversial topics ever debated in history. Did Truman make the right decision? Make sure you back up your points of view with facts, figures and evidence!
Yes, explain
Side Score: 55
|
 |
No, explain
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
|
4
points
2
points
2
points
1
point
I think that the Americans choice in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both justifiable, although both of these actions were inhumane they both had a reason. Japan needed to be "taught a lesson" they needed to be controlled and America needed to show the rest of the world that they were a country to be feared. Side: Yes, explain
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
The dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the right thing to do because it benefited America in the attempt to create peace and end World War 2. If atomic bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, victims of the Japanese army would have been increased. During the war Japan had a powerful army and captured Asia. The result of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki left the world a message of how dangerous a nuclear bomb really is. 140,000 people of Hiroshima directly died and after five years another 60,000 people would die of effect of the bomb. In Nagasaki a total of 140,000 died within five years. Side: Yes, explain
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I don't think there should be any limitations or rules on the conduct of war. I think war should be as horrific and brutal as possible so that it ends quickly and dissuades people from wanting to engage in it again. And I don't find thousands of civilians and soldiers dying in an atomic blast any more brutal or horrific than thousands of civilians and soldiers dying from bullet wounds and lacerations and shrapnel and burns. Look at is this way. Japan and America got into a bar fight. Japan swung first, and America left Japan gasping for breath on the floor with two black eyes, broken bones, and missing teeth. Arguably America might have used excessive violence in putting down Japan, perhaps a simple, straightforward knockout would have been sufficient, but if Japan didn't want to get hurt they shouldn't have swung in the first place. And now Japan and everyone else in the bar knows not to fuck with America. Side: Yes, explain
1
point
Side: Yes, explain
1
point
Yes, dropping atomic weapons was the only thing other than a ground invasion that would have gotten the Japanese to surrender. Yes, there were civilian casualties; however, if there were a ground invasion the war would have dragged on, and many civilians, and US soldiers would have perished needlessly. Additionally, this invasion could have weekend the US substantially. Side: Yes, explain
1
point
If you believe in morals that promote more good than bad, then an argument can be made in support of the bombs. It is one of the most notorious wars in the history of men and it needed to end. Dropping the bombs made a decisive victory that potentially saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Who knows what other tactics would have been used to win. Side: Yes, explain
|
1
point
1
point
2
points
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~., . . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-., . . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:, . . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\, . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,} . . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.} . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./ . . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./ . . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./ . . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/ . . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .} . . .. . .((. . .~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../ . . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../ . . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-” . . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\ . . . . . . \`~.-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__ ,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-, . .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==`` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..` Source(s): Side: Yes, explain
2
points
1
point
1
point
Actually, invading would have created even more deaths. Even though a Nuclear Bomb killed a lot of people, the invasion of mainland Japan would have killed more Americans and even more Japanese! The Japanese were ready and waiting for the Americans to invade and were fanatical to defend their homeland. The Ameicans would have been slaughtered to gain only a few miles of Japan and bodies would have piled up. Even though Nuking Japan killed a lot of people, it probably saved even more lives. That doesn't mean I support nuking to save lives! I prefer not to use nukes for any reason. Frankly, I wish they were never invented, but they were and we have to deal with what we wrought. Side: Yes, explain
No I do not believe it was necessary for America to drop the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Though it was affective in causing the surrender of japan but in the process many innocent woman and children were kill. Less men were killed in this manmade disaster as they were of fighting in the war. Side: No, explain
1
point
We did it at the time to strike such fear into their hearts that they would be forced to surrender. At the time, completely necessary! NOW, we look at the past, and the Japanese Emperor told his ambassadors in Russia that he wanted peace long before the bombs dropped. He told them about near the end of the European Front. The problem is that the ambassadors directly ignored him and disobeyed a direct order to spread the word of the Japanese surrender. We discovered this deep in Japanese archives and several found documents from the past. Because of this, the Japanese continued their Pacific war, even though the Emperor wanted to stop the war. If the ambassadors listened, the bombs wouldn't be necessary. It's sorta sad what a bit of insubordination can do. The ambassadors involved should be shot over that event if they weren't then. Side: No, explain
1
point
1
point
1
point
Was it necessary? Yes. But it was not moral. This is probably my most passionate topic, and I've written arguments for at least five or six other versions of this debate on here, but here's the basis of what I think about it: 1.) On at least some level, it wasn't all about ending the war. Dropping the bomb was also beneficial for the Manhattan Project. In other words, we used the civilians as freaking guinea pigs for atomic bombs. 2.) Many effects of the atomic bomb were delayed. Who says it wasn't possible that the emperor would have surrendered if they had been able to wait a month or so and get a taste of the long-term effects? Then Nagasaki could have been avoided. I know that the situation was imminent, but that just makes it all the more unfortunate--that they got two bombs dropped on them, and then they surrendered, and then they experienced the after-effects. 3.) The power of the bomb is nearly impossible to wrap one's head around. It's unimaginable that we could kill about 70,000 people in around two seconds, especially when at least some of those people didn't even become corpses; they were incinerated. 4.) I don't care if it was "total war" or not. The Japanese people we killed were most likely not personally responsible for the things we were mad at Japan for doing. For all we know, they might not have even agreed with doing such things. The people who were nuked never did anything wrong. 5.) It's not actually entirely true that the Japanese refused to surrender; they merely refused to surrender unconditionally. I don't actually know how much of a threat the emperor was to America, but either way, it it incorrect to say that the Japanese were entirely uncooperative with this agreement. 6.) The whole event has encouraged the dehumanization of the Japanese both during the dropping of the bomb and afterwards. They may have done things that were wrong, and it's okay to acknowledge that. We just have to make sure to remember that they were people too; just because that wasn't relevant in the midst of total war, doesn't mean it can't be relevant now. Side: No, explain
1
point
Can right or wrong really exist? What moral viewpoint would this question be coming from? Assuming that one's morals are based in more good and less bad, an argument can be made against it. The bombs were dropped on civilians and they were innocent in the war. They were simply living their lives. How can the leader of a 'moral' country have the authority to murder hundreds of thousands of people to save themselves. Why should their lives be sacrificed for yours? Side: No, explain
1
point
|
