Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, of course!

    I think they deserved to be bombed because they bombed us at Pearl Harbor. Yes, we feel pity for them because it killed 70,000 plus. But they also killed some of our people. That's really not right, You expect to kill our people and us to be just fine with it? No! That's not how it works. But honestly, war is stupid. We shouldn't fight at all because innocent civilians that have nothing to do with it get involved and killed. Really, if people really want to fight why don't the leaders fight and get their lives taken not the innocent. I support the bombs just because they did it to us, but I do not support killing people. We don't even need weapons in the world. All we need is world peace, a loving family and a cup of water. People these days won't just relax!
    -TBP (:

  • Yes i do think we should have drop the bomb

    I think we should have dropped the bomb on Japan they deserved it. Remember at Pearl Harbor, they bombed us. The war would keep going until they were tired of fighting or until they didn't have any more men to fight with or even if they didn't have any more equipment to fight with. I think you should agree with me.

  • Yes they should have

    Yes we should have because they had plenty of opportunities to surrender and they didn't. We told them if they didn't surrender, there would be utter mass destruction put upon them. They chose to ignore it and brush it off. If we had invaded, then probably 1/4th of Japan's population would have been killed. Yes, it was terrible that so many people died, but in the end, it was what the U.S. Thought was necessary. Japan still didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped, only after the second one was dropped, the emperor of Japan stepped in and gave the final decision of surrendering.

  • The U.S had to drop the bomb

    The dropping of those two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was very bad. However, a land invasion would have costed an excess of one million American lives. The Japanese of the 1940's would have fought to the last inch of that island, and the body count would have been astronomically higher if the bombs weren't dropped.

  • Lesser of two evils.

    The Japanese predicted twenty million clandestine deaths defending the home islands. The more revised US estimates predicted up to four million Allied casualties with one million dead. Not to mention the 1.6million Soviet troops who had just entered the theatre of conflict and who were ruthless in their warfighting and had a tendency to die in their thousands themselves.
    In comparison, the atomic bombs killed between 150,000-250,000 depending on the source. Can you really say that they were unnecessary when looking at these statistics? They unquestionably saved MILLIONS and MILLIONS of lives.
    Sure, it could be said that the use of atomic weapons created a nuclear precedent that led to the Cold War, but the Soviets themselves were developing atomic weapons anyway as Soviet spies had gained access to the Manhattan Project and implemented an atomic weapons program in Russia.
    Other historians have said that the US dropped them simply to show their might and assert their authority. This is absolute rubbish, the US homefront was relatively unscathed and industry was booming with exports and war manufacturing. The US was in pole position to dominate the post-war world with or without the atomic bomb.
    Furthermore, cases have been made for using the bombs over non-populated areas, but where's the guarantee that Japan would have heeded this warning? They outright rejected the threat of annihilation promised in the Potsdam declaration and despite some cities suffering up to 97% damage as a result of area bombing and firebombing, Japan still refused to surrender.
    Elsewhere, historians believed that a continued naval blockade along with conventional bombing would have eventually brought Japan to her knees, however, the US nor the allies for that matter had any intention of allowing a war that had raged for six years to rumble on any further when the means to end it swiftly were readily available. Anyway, with the Soviets invading on the other side, allied lives would still have been lost in their droves, not to mention the lives of the fanatical defenders. It wasn't just the Japanese army that was defending the islands, but a 'civilian militia' that numbered in the millions, all of whom were expected to fight until the last bullet.
    I see these comments about 'de-classified documents estimating 40,000-60,000 deaths' and can't help but laugh at your naivety. On Iwo Jima alone there were almost 50,000 combined casualties, and while it was soverign territory, the home islands of Japan would prove a different battle.
    The terrain of Japan made a land invasion highly predictable to the defenders and the planned guerilla style resistance would have created a battle of attrition. The death toll would have been millions, WITHOUT QUESTION.
    I am a former member of the British military and a third-year American History student, I know what I'm talking about. I challenge any of you to come up with a more thoroughly researched argument.

  • Of course they should have.

    Think of it, they killed about 15000 people, but if they didn't do it, who knows what could of happened! The war have gone on and on and billions of people could have died! Yes, they could have just stopped at Hiroshima, but still! They killed thousands to save millions.

  • Yes, we should have!

    We dropped the bomb because the Japanese were ruthless jerks who dropped bombs on us first. They destroyed our ships making it to where we couldn't ship as much and defend ourselves. They tore apart Pearl Harbor so much that they could have invaded there and took over and they were sad they didn't. It was only fair that we bomb them in return. It may have killed hundreds but they killed our people, too!

  • The atomic bomb was the best choice.

    If the atomic bomb didn't happen a lot of people would have died for no reason. The Japanese only kept fighting because there leader was making them. All the had to do was just kick him out or something. They started the war so they deserve to bombed. It saved millions of people lives.

  • WHY NOT DROP

    What if that was your Family member, Friend, Lover.
    What if that was you fighting in the war. Would you want to get killed, So all people who said we shouldnt have dropped the bomb i think you need Think agian because without that bomb we would have lost more than we killed so think about that maybe just maybe you will change you mind.

  • Quick ending to the war.

    The us wanted to end the war quickly without costing the lives of more soldiers. So the president agreed to drop the bombs. It made the Japanese surrender because they knew that if they continued the war they could not win. The atomic bomb's destructive power would have defeated them anyways.

  • Dropping the atomic bomb was wrong.

    One bomb is understandable, but to be completely honest Japan would have surrendered without bombs. The mass murdering (because that's exactly what it was) of millions of Japanese citizens was unnecessary! We would have been devastated if they bombed America and it was our families that were wiped out. Then after all of it America decides they can say who gets to use their nuclear weapons and who cant. I don't think so!

  • Totally DECIMATED Japan

    So what if the U.S. would've fought in the war longer? Japan would've been spared the horror. Harmless, innocent civilians were brutally murdered, the subsequent radiation made the cities unlivable for the longest time, and the environment was harmed horribly. Forget bombings, we should've fought longer!

  • Atomic Bombs- A little too extreme

    Even though bombing was required to end the war, the US could have dropped fire bombs which would have had a similar effect in terms of death tolls and destruction to the infrastructure, but would not have lead to the after effects of an atomic bomb, like the contamination of their water sources and crop, and radiation poisoning. It also lead to other countries developing WMD and nuclear missile programs. This has become a huge threat to World Peace and had the US not played the "Atomic Bomb card", we wouldn't be facing this threat today.

  • It was inhumane.

    The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not criminals. They were just normal people going about their day. Not only was it inhumane to the survivors, but that land is now ruined by radiation. There is no excuse for causing the devastation that the U.S. Released upon that area of land.

  • That bomb killed millions of innocent lives.

    If America was trying to show that it had power, they could have dropped the bomb in a less populated area still showing the damage the bomb could do without having to take so many innocent souls. That would have scared the Japanese and still caused them to surrender, especially considering the fact that America could have been planning to drop more and destroy everything.

  • The U.S. should not have bombed Japan.

    Not all of the people in Japan were guilty. Some were innocent, and weren't even involved. It just wasn't very fair to the citizens in Japan. They should have just stuck with a simple war. At least less people would have died and the innocent people would have been safe.

  • No, the U.S. should not have dropped the atomic bomb.

    No, I don't believe that the U.S. should have dropped the atomic bomb. The atomic bombs that we dropped on Japan were completely uncalled for and were an excessive show of force which could have been easily avoided through diplomatic means. The regions of those bomb sites had lasting effects of the nuclear blast and left many in the area with problems and also left their children with problems. It is ironic that the U.S. polices the world in who is allowed to carry nuclear weapons and who is not, even though we are one of the only countries to ever use them on another nation.

  • Killing innocent people is wrong!

    Why end war with more war? It is not at all necessary. It isn't right to kill kids and murder whole families just because the government thinks it is okay to do so. It isn't right, and the United States should not have done what they did. It was the wrong decision for the United States to do that to innocent people.

  • Laws and regulations were not established.

    The atomic bombs was kept secret by the USA and the world was not aware of such weapon. Therefore, there was no ruling or regulating body that sets limits, rules and laws about the usage of the weapons. This pretty much means that USA has unrestricted control of its secret bomb. Although USA is seen as the superpower, that does not mean USA has the right to use such thing. Yes, it was tested and evaluated by scientists before it was actually used, but it was only by the American scientists, not by professionals from other nations. America does not have the power to do whatever they want.

  • Innocent lives were lost.

    No, because the reason the United States did this was just to intimidate Russia and many, many innocent lives were lost. There were diplomatic options available. The United States remains the only country to have used such a devastating bomb to this day. It was evil and a black mark on the United States.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Jaguar_999 says2013-05-05T20:23:25.890
Shoud the U.S drop atomic bomb on Japan?
Introduction
In 1945 when World War I alost ended United States drop atomic bomb on the two cities of Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefecture health department estimated that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians.

On 15 August, six days after the bombing of Nagasaki, Japan announced its surrender to the Allies, signing the Instrument of Surrender on 2 September, officially ending World War II. The bombings led, in part, to post-war Japan's adopting Three Non-Nuclear Principles, forbidding the nation from nuclear armament. The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and their ethical justification are still debated.

In my opinion United States of America shoudn't use nuclear bomb on Japan. But they did. Because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.In two waves of terror lasting two long hours, they killed or wounded over 3,500 Americans and sank or badly damaged 18 ships - including all 8 battleships of the Pacific Fleet - and over 350 destroyed or damaged aircraft. At least 1,177 lives were lost when the Battleship Arizona exploded and sank.

However, they did not sink any of Pacific aircraft carriers and they left most of the fuel that was needed to win the war in the Pacific. In one stroke, the Japanese navy scored a brilliant success. At the Pearl Harbor 3,500 soldiers died. According to the number of deaths at Pearl Harbor to the number of deaths at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki the nuber of deaths at Pearl Harbor is almost nothing. Also most of those who died in Pearl Harbor was soldiers and most who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was innocent people.

The day after the attack, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed a joint session of United States Congress. Roosevelt called December 7 "a date which will live in infamy". Congress declared war on the Empire of Japan amid outrage at the attack and the late delivery of the note from the Japanese government breaking off relations with the U.S. Government, actions considered treacherous. Pacifist Representative Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana, cast the only dissenting vote. Roosevelt signed the declaration of war later the same day. Continuing to intensify its military mobilization, the U.S. Government finished converting to a war economy, a process begun by provision of weapons and supplies to the Soviet Union and Great Britain.

After they join the was vs japan they took all of the Japaneese people who lived in America and put them in prison. I think it is also unfair to them, because in world war one or at other war those Japanese people was fighting there protecting them. And now they took them to prison because their Native country attacked the U.S, its not fair. Also when the U.S. Drops those two atomic bomb dozens of thousands of people died. When atomic bomb explodes people who are in radius of explsion dieing first. They die because of explasiaon that destroys almost everything around its radius and also people also died because of light damage the just burm them. Also the atomic shodow the went up damge the atmosphere. After the bombing very small amount of people survived because they died of explsion and the the radiation the was just burning them slowly from inside. After all of the peopl was have to almost remove the city they ere have remove the graund building almost everything to get red of readiation. So I think that was a bad idea to drop those atomic bombs.

Althought some people disagree with me. They think that it was good idea that U.S droped the atomic bomb at Japan. But i won't change my mind i still think that it is was a bad idea and i hope you will agree with me.
Anonymous says2013-05-15T20:17:14.360
I believe that the United States shouldn’t have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of all the damage it caused to Japanese citizens in Hiroshima, Nagasaki or surrounding cities. I think the right thing to do if the atomic bomb was our only choice to end the war, is to drop one on an evacuated Iwo Jima island. To demonstrate power, but I wouldn’t drop the atomic bomb twice on two populated area’s. All in all I think it was wrong for the U.S. To have dropped the two bombs, on innocent people.

Another reason I believe it is wrong to have dropped bombs of those magnitudes is because if the same thing were to of happened to day. Not only would it count as a crime against humanity, but also act of terrorism. Then after this crime of terror the arms race started which wouldn’t have happened if we didn’t drop an atomic bomb on Japan in the first place. In my opinion if we didnt drop the atomic bombs, the world would be way less of the dangerous, chemical weapons filled, nuclear warzone it could now become today. All because the atomic bomb started the race to build and mass produce weapons of mass destruction.
Anonymous says2013-06-03T00:43:02.380
So many people who have said yes are saying that the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justified because "they bombed Pearl Harbor first". Revenge does not justify the dropping of the atomic bombs. If that is the only reason you think the bombings were justified then you really shouldn't be picking a side yet of wether it was justified or not as you don't have enough information on the topic.
RealAmerican says2013-06-15T06:18:48.217
NO, NO, NO. We should have NEVER dropped the nuclear bombs. Japan had already offered to surrendered BEFORE we decided to use our new nuclear weapon on them. Therefore, the decision to drop the bomb had reasons other than ending the war with Japan. We wanted to show the world, and especially The Soviet Union, our new toy, and what we were capable of doing. As an American with roots all the way back to the Mayflower, I feel sad and ashamed that we have massacred hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, just to show the world our strength.
Anonymous says2013-06-25T21:24:12.337
There were over 200,000 people who died when we dropped the bombs (high estimate) as well as inter-generational effects. This might seem like a complete tragedy, and completely unrequited, but what were the alternatives? What was the goal? What was the outcome? Finally, what was accomplished? The alternatives were two: Invasion or negotiation. In the invasion scenario, it would have been more or less impossible to subdue Japan without 1,500,000 million military casualties (counting both sides, low estimate,) which does not mention the civilian casualties, which would have been at most comparable to 1/2 the civilian casualties that the bomb caused. Some would say this is better, attacking more so those who "chose" to be in the military, but considering 1) conscription and 2) the Japanese code of honor, shaming any who refused to enlist, this is more like killing twice the number of male civilians, and saving many women and children. This is regardless of tactics, death would be unavoidable in a war of that scale. In the situation of negotiation, There would be a possibility of negotiating peace, likely with the idea that we give Japan a large amount of the territory it captured (reached nearly to Australia) and would have taken quite a long time. There also would have been little to discourage them from attacking again quite later, if the war could have been seen as a "success" from their point of view. If we wished to negotiate them back further, we could have refused to trade with Japan (which had very little fuel reserves to sustain themselves) but the idea of Japanese honor and integrity (among other things) kept them separate from the world for several hundred years. Not the most winning plan, and subject to counter attack, as well as vast militarization on both sides of the ocean. The goal of dropping the bomb, in the end, was to demonstrate the power of the U.S. As well as end the war. Check. Does that justify anything? Nope. Moving on. The outcome was exactly as expected, with a kick: The Japanese agreed to sign a treaty of unconditional surrender, after we killed several hundred thousand civilians (still high estimate,) the U.S. Demonstrated their power, the world was shocked, more people died from the poisoning, the place where the city was was scorched, irradiated, and massively messed up, and (the kick) people would suffer (horribly and by extension) for years and decades (and generations) afterwards. Woo. And what was accomplished? (different from outcome) What was accomplished was that 200,000 people died (still, still, a high estimate) and were irradiated when really, they didn't need to be. Yes there could have been future problems (could(!) have been) but hey, we guaranteed future problems with the bomb, so who cares. Yes we saved lives, but hey! Negotiation could have done that too! In conclusion, I think that as a decision at the time, it wasn't the best one that could have been made, but it also wasn't someone completely evil pressing a button. It was a group of people who made a weapon of war. Then, they told the people who were in charge what would happen if they used it. Those people told the President, who found a way to justify it to himself and the people around him, and they as a group decided to drop it. Not with a light heart, but a heavy mind. So bad, but not evil. Unfortunate for all parties.

P.S. Food for thought: you don't see someone key your car, and then shoot him. That would be the comparison between Pearl Harbour (Yes Harbour with a "u" because I am Canadian) and Hiroshima.

P.P.S. The Japanese had an estimated 6 weeks of oil reserves left. Their military would have been semi-useless and also had no spare parts or ability to repair anything afterwards. Their surrender would have been necessary afterwards, and their military crippled.

Food for thought.
Anonymous says2013-08-27T23:13:55.963
It was bad