Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified?

imperialchimp
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 3:31:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment

Source?
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 3:41:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 3:31:23 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment

Source?

Read my round 2
http://www.debate.org...
FortisAnimi
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 8:16:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 3:41:00 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:31:23 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment

Source?

Read my round 2
http://www.debate.org...

Lol. Incorrect answer.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 10:03:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 8:16:24 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:41:00 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:31:23 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment

Source?

Read my round 2
http://www.debate.org...

Lol. Incorrect answer.

Meh, I could link them to a doc I wrote up a while ago. But then I would have to go searching for it, and the last location I remember is there.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 12:17:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 10:03:03 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:16:24 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:41:00 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:31:23 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment

Source?

Read my round 2
http://www.debate.org...

Lol. Incorrect answer.

Meh, I could link them to a doc I wrote up a while ago. But then I would have to go searching for it, and the last location I remember is there.

Japan didn't necessarily want peace. The Japanese, while possessing extreme intelligence, also possess this national pride that gives them enough morale to withstand a losing war and die fighting. The problem is that when you invade an island nation against a population of 100 million that could easily arm themselves, you will lose a lot of money and a lot of troops. So, they dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and another on Nagasaki to force them into an unconditional surrender.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 12:54:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 12:17:58 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 10:03:03 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:16:24 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:41:00 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:31:23 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment

Source?

Read my round 2
http://www.debate.org...

Lol. Incorrect answer.

Meh, I could link them to a doc I wrote up a while ago. But then I would have to go searching for it, and the last location I remember is there.

Japan didn't necessarily want peace. The Japanese, while possessing extreme intelligence, also possess this national pride that gives them enough morale to withstand a losing war and die fighting. The problem is that when you invade an island nation against a population of 100 million that could easily arm themselves, you will lose a lot of money and a lot of troops. So, they dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and another on Nagasaki to force them into an unconditional surrender.

False. THe japanese obviously didnt have national pride as you said, nor would they refuse to surrender because they already tried to negotiate peace before the bombs were dropped. The peace conditions they proposed were the same that were proposed after dropping the bombs. THe bombs did nothing to end the war, they merely sent a message to the soviet union, got revenge, and tested some science experiments. Its disgusting
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:09:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 12:54:27 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/30/2016 12:17:58 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 10:03:03 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:16:24 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:41:00 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:31:23 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment

Source?

Read my round 2
http://www.debate.org...

Lol. Incorrect answer.

Meh, I could link them to a doc I wrote up a while ago. But then I would have to go searching for it, and the last location I remember is there.

Japan didn't necessarily want peace. The Japanese, while possessing extreme intelligence, also possess this national pride that gives them enough morale to withstand a losing war and die fighting. The problem is that when you invade an island nation against a population of 100 million that could easily arm themselves, you will lose a lot of money and a lot of troops. So, they dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and another on Nagasaki to force them into an unconditional surrender.

False. THe japanese obviously didnt have national pride as you said, nor would they refuse to surrender because they already tried to negotiate peace before the bombs were dropped. The peace conditions they proposed were the same that were proposed after dropping the bombs.

THe bombs did nothing to end the war, they merely sent a message to the soviet union, got revenge, and tested some science experiments.

You just proved that it was justified. The fact that we saw the human devastation caused by nuclear weapons and the fact that the Soviet Union saw our nuclear capabilities is what caused us from 1. having an unconditional surrender from the Japanese, and 2. Being able to use this arsenal as a deterrant from Soviet aggression.
Its disgusting
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Ariesz
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:13:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:09:02 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 12:54:27 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/30/2016 12:17:58 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 10:03:03 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:16:24 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:41:00 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:31:23 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment

Source?

Read my round 2
http://www.debate.org...

Lol. Incorrect answer.

Meh, I could link them to a doc I wrote up a while ago. But then I would have to go searching for it, and the last location I remember is there.

Japan didn't necessarily want peace. The Japanese, while possessing extreme intelligence, also possess this national pride that gives them enough morale to withstand a losing war and die fighting. The problem is that when you invade an island nation against a population of 100 million that could easily arm themselves, you will lose a lot of money and a lot of troops. So, they dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and another on Nagasaki to force them into an unconditional surrender.

False. THe japanese obviously didnt have national pride as you said, nor would they refuse to surrender because they already tried to negotiate peace before the bombs were dropped. The peace conditions they proposed were the same that were proposed after dropping the bombs.

THe bombs did nothing to end the war, they merely sent a message to the soviet union, got revenge, and tested some science experiments.

You just proved that it was justified. The fact that we saw the human devastation caused by nuclear weapons and the fact that the Soviet Union saw our nuclear capabilities is what caused us from 1. having an unconditional surrender from the Japanese, and 2. Being able to use this arsenal as a deterrant from Soviet aggression.
Its disgusting

Bballcrook is right. The Japanese were fiercely loyal to their country. It would be a very time consuming war that would have lost our country billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of lives. Casualties would also be inevitable. If we did decide to launch a ground invasion of Japan, than it would be more likely of a chance of civilian deaths. Look at Vietnam.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:14:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:13:50 AM, Ariesz wrote:
At 4/30/2016 1:09:02 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 12:54:27 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/30/2016 12:17:58 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 10:03:03 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:16:24 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:41:00 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:31:23 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment

Source?

Read my round 2
http://www.debate.org...

Lol. Incorrect answer.

Meh, I could link them to a doc I wrote up a while ago. But then I would have to go searching for it, and the last location I remember is there.

Japan didn't necessarily want peace. The Japanese, while possessing extreme intelligence, also possess this national pride that gives them enough morale to withstand a losing war and die fighting. The problem is that when you invade an island nation against a population of 100 million that could easily arm themselves, you will lose a lot of money and a lot of troops. So, they dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and another on Nagasaki to force them into an unconditional surrender.

False. THe japanese obviously didnt have national pride as you said, nor would they refuse to surrender because they already tried to negotiate peace before the bombs were dropped. The peace conditions they proposed were the same that were proposed after dropping the bombs.

THe bombs did nothing to end the war, they merely sent a message to the soviet union, got revenge, and tested some science experiments.

You just proved that it was justified. The fact that we saw the human devastation caused by nuclear weapons and the fact that the Soviet Union saw our nuclear capabilities is what caused us from 1. having an unconditional surrender from the Japanese, and 2. Being able to use this arsenal as a deterrant from Soviet aggression.
Its disgusting

Bballcrook is right. The Japanese were fiercely loyal to their country. It would be a very time consuming war that would have lost our country billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of lives. Casualties would also be inevitable. If we did decide to launch a ground invasion of Japan, than it would be more likely of a chance of civilian deaths. Look at Vietnam.

Did you make a new account?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Ariesz
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:16:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:14:19 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 1:13:50 AM, Ariesz wrote:
At 4/30/2016 1:09:02 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 12:54:27 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/30/2016 12:17:58 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/29/2016 10:03:03 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 8:16:24 PM, FortisAnimi wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:41:00 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 3:31:23 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/29/2016 2:33:18 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

Japan already wanted peace before dropping the bombs, thus the bombs didnt do anything to end the war. It was just a sick science experiment

Source?

Read my round 2
http://www.debate.org...

Lol. Incorrect answer.

Meh, I could link them to a doc I wrote up a while ago. But then I would have to go searching for it, and the last location I remember is there.

Japan didn't necessarily want peace. The Japanese, while possessing extreme intelligence, also possess this national pride that gives them enough morale to withstand a losing war and die fighting. The problem is that when you invade an island nation against a population of 100 million that could easily arm themselves, you will lose a lot of money and a lot of troops. So, they dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and another on Nagasaki to force them into an unconditional surrender.

False. THe japanese obviously didnt have national pride as you said, nor would they refuse to surrender because they already tried to negotiate peace before the bombs were dropped. The peace conditions they proposed were the same that were proposed after dropping the bombs.

THe bombs did nothing to end the war, they merely sent a message to the soviet union, got revenge, and tested some science experiments.

You just proved that it was justified. The fact that we saw the human devastation caused by nuclear weapons and the fact that the Soviet Union saw our nuclear capabilities is what caused us from 1. having an unconditional surrender from the Japanese, and 2. Being able to use this arsenal as a deterrant from Soviet aggression.
Its disgusting

Bballcrook is right. The Japanese were fiercely loyal to their country. It would be a very time consuming war that would have lost our country billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of lives. Casualties would also be inevitable. If we did decide to launch a ground invasion of Japan, than it would be more likely of a chance of civilian deaths. Look at Vietnam.

Did you make a new account?

It should be obvious. My old account kept giving me sign in problems.
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:21:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Frankly, anyone who thinks we should not have bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima are applying an argument that makes them feel good (yeah killing innocent civilians is bad!) to which the actual truth may not- supporting the massacre because an invasion would've led to millions of lives lost, Americans and Japanese alike.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:23:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:21:24 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
Frankly, anyone who thinks we should not have bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima are applying an argument that makes them feel good (yeah killing innocent civilians is bad!) to which the actual truth may not- supporting the massacre because an invasion would've led to millions of lives lost, Americans and Japanese alike.

From a policy standpoint, getting as few of your own killed and as many to force surrender of the enemy is what wins war and allows for that leader to actually be seen as a good leader.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:32:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:23:04 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/30/2016 1:21:24 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
Frankly, anyone who thinks we should not have bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima are applying an argument that makes them feel good (yeah killing innocent civilians is bad!) to which the actual truth may not- supporting the massacre because an invasion would've led to millions of lives lost, Americans and Japanese alike.

From a policy standpoint, getting as few of your own killed and as many to force surrender of the enemy is what wins war and allows for that leader to actually be seen as a good leader.

Which is exactly the point:

Atomic Bombs-
Americans killed, 0
Japanese killed, about 300,000
Japanese surrendered, all

No Atomic Bombs-
Americans killed, 1.7-4 million
Japanese killed, 5-10 million
Japanese surrendered, unknown

http://www.forbes.com...
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2016 11:30:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I recall that the US had enough material for a third bomb, and that was all. I don't know how long it would have taken to produce enough material for more weapons.

I wonder what kind of intelligence Japan had about the program? Had they known that the weapons were strictly limited maybe they wouldn't have surrended so soon.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 5:30:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Considering the horrific damage already done via firebombing, the use of nukes was not beyond the pale. I do question having the second bombing only three days behind the first.

Pro arguments are pretty well publicized, so I offer this informative article of Con arguments-- particularly the "wait for the Russians" alternative:

http://www.authentichistory.com...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 6:00:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

this is stupid how genocide is considered justified if they wanted to end the war they could bomb military facilities instead.
Never fart near dog
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 12:41:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 4:48:37 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
I have 2 sides and must pick one.

Yes: End justified means. The goal was to bring the war to an end quickly. This was the only way to quickly end the war. A long drawn out war would lower morale and waste resources. Leaders are not supposed to be moral people. Moral people aren't always effective people (they are sometimes recluses).

No: It was immoral by killing many civilians. They didn't want to get involve in this conflict. Pearl harbor wasn't nearly as bad as these two bombings. Atomic bombs were only dropped on civilians. Pearl harbor specifically attacked military areas (and i think some civilians though i'm not too sure).

War is as old as recorded time. All acts of war are justified by someone. The fact that you may find some act of war unjustified is really quite irrelevant to someone fighting for their life.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
keithprosser
Posts: 2,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:28:16 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Following leads suggested by Hayd's link, I would judge that America deliberately extended the war in order to drop atomic weapons on Japan. Of course historians can lie in the cause of some private agenda, but it seems that multiple Japanese attempts to surrender through diplomatic channels were simply ignored or rebuffed by the US.