Should atomic bombs have been the solution to WWII?
Debate Rounds (1)
First, in the sense that the tides of war were turned against the Japanese, Japan was already beaten. In the sense that the Japanese were done fighting, Japan was not beaten. Japan still had many troops that were being deployed and were fighting to the death, but the American soldiers were starting to outnumber the Japanese soldiers. The bombs were, in a way, an act of mercy. If they had not been used, the Japanese would not have surrendered as soon, throwing out more soldiers that would die in the war.
Second, some of the Japanese politicians wanted the militarist to surrender, but the militarists wanted to keep fighting until they won. When the bomb was dropped, the militarists were, in a way, slapped in the face with a dirty fish. At that point, the politicians gained more voice and they considered surrender. Surrender ends wars, which is why it was necessary to drop the bombs.
Third, when the atomic bombs were dropped, the Japanese were very broken down and their fighting spirit had been broken. The militarists had been more humbled and considered surrender. The full surrender of all the troops took even longer, because of the expanse of the Japanese soldiers in the Indonesian islands. Still, the war was over.
Some opponents of the atomic bombs say the firebombing would have killed less innocent citizens, this is a lie. If the bombs had not been dropped, the war would have most likely ended in December, but the death toll would be very high. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed close to 225,000 people total. If the firebombing continued, it would have killed another 100,000 every 7-10 days, killing many more than that of the atomic bombs. The less death there is, the better.
Other opponents of the atomic bombs say that Japan was going to surrender even if the United States had only dropped one bomb. It was necessary to drop two bombs because it made Japan think we had many more bombs than just the two. If we had only used one bomb, Japan could have possibly kept fighting. If the Japanese had kept on fighting, war could have gotten more advanced, other countries could have joined, or bomb production in Japan could have escalated. If any of these possibilities came about, we might have lost the war.
Dropping the atomic bombs was necessary. The atomic bombs killed less people than the firebombing and incendiary raids. Dropping two bombs was necessary because it made Japan think America had more bombs. Some of the pacifist politicians in Japan didn't have the power to convince the others of their intentions until after the bombs were dropped.
Your first argument was, that dropping the atomic bombs could be even regarded as a mercy because there were -probably- less people killed in this war. 'Cause you think that continuing the war with common firebombs would just have delayed and not changed the end that irretrievably was supposed to come. So, of course that's definetly true. There might have been more victims that have directly died in this war if the Americans had continued with firebombs or comparable arms. But I think you completly forget that the impacts of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still a considerable problem in this region. To this day, there is an obvious higher percentage of people getting critically ill and suffering from cancer. The consequences are still perceptible, although there are already more than sixty years in between.
Dropping these bombs was not a mercy. It was (and it is still) the reason why innocent people were and are still affected from the history. People are dying due to the error of some persons who weren't able to forsee the unbelievable consequences that came along with their decision. And right now, most of the persons in charge are already dead,so that there's no one anymore to be held responsible.
Second, it is possible that the Japenese would not have surrendered immediately, but do you think, from where we stand right now,that this faster victory was worth the price of the still lasting guilt ? In the long view, this war is claiming much more victims than without dropping these bombs.
Perhaps this was a good method to prevent other attempts of a new war, because every nation from this time is definetly discouraged to do so, but I think that this war was claiming so many victims, innocent persons who arent't involved at all in this war.
In addition, it has rather polarized the world, there's still a big gap between the West and the East (especially the USA and Russia).
The suspicion towards each other is aggravating the attempts of solidarity a lot.
You also said that dropping the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki was necessary to ensure that the Japenese won't dare to try a new attack. I'd rather say that it was only executed to reinforce and ensure the supremacy of the USA.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ceaser_6.0 11 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: only 1 round
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.