Amazon.com Widgets
  • The best decision possible in ending the war for the united states

    Every nation must do what it needs to do to protect itself and all other possible options in ending the war were problematic for Truman, the US government, and the US military. The options were:
    1) Full invasion of Japan 2) Status Quo 3) Atomic Bomb
    All three of these options could lead to a US victory, but the first two would have a much greater cost than the bomb. Us military death toll would be significant, Truman would continue to look weak to the US public and the world, and American support for the war effort was faltering.

  • Japan deserved it

    Japan so deserved it. Do you know about the Rape of Nanking in China and the invasion of Korea? Japan also tried to dominate the whole Asian continent, like Indonesia and other southern Asia countries. Japan wanted Pearl Harbor for power, because it went island hopping to get more land. If it didn't want that much power and land, why would it have bombed Pearl Harbor suddenly when America wasn't even involved in the war yet? The Japanese did so many wrong things to so many countries at that time, like torturing innocent Chinese women and making them prostitutes at such a young age. The Japanese tried to wipe away Korean culture by making Koreans fight for Japan during WWII. And this wasn't for a year or two. It went on for a while. And so when Japanese conquered other countries and caused neutral US citizens to die, it was a horrible idea for the US to drop the atomic bomb? That doesn't even make sense. The US also gave warnings to Japan and Japan didn't surrender. That was Japan's fault, not America's. Yes, the US bombed innocent Japanese civilians, but it's wrong for America to do that when the Japanese first raped Chinese women and tortured Koreans? Japan wasn't all that innocent, you know. And the atomic bombing of Japan really helped Japan to surrender not only WWII but all the countries in Asia that wanted independence.

  • Yes It Was

    Japan acted aggressively and arrogantly after Prime Minister Togo resigned, but they made it clear; they would not succumb to the US invasion without fighting to the last man. A US invasion would've killed 250,000+ US troops, and those were just low estimates. The end justifies the means, and shall always do so. To sacrifice 50,000 civilians from the enemy's side is much more sensible than sacrificing 250,000. Although I admit it was barbaric, it was justified. Japan would have never submitted without the bombs.

  • It is necessary for humanity at the time...

    There is no need for any argument that more will be killed(both civilians & military personnels) on both sides...If the war is to prolonged further... Japanese has the attitude of never surrendering, as they rather die than bringing dishonour to their family & their living "god" aka emperor.. All civilians are told to fight to the death, with bamboo spears..That is the spirit of the Bushido. Hence the so-called sacrifice at Hironshima & Nagasaki is regrettable but necessary..If history is to repeat again, my opinion will still be the same.. Don't always look at the Japanese as the victims of war since they lost..Think of those innocent civilians in the whole of Asia(which Japanese invaded) are suffering at the times..It is many times more death than the Japanese suffered even though they are the aggressor in WW2. The longer the war prolonged, there will be thousands of deaths daily throughout Asia as well as the American soldiers at that time...Does it mean that their deaths are justifiable, in order not to use the Atom bombs on Japan(the aggressor) , to bring a swift stop to this meaningless & brutal war?

  • Saved American Lives

    A mainland invasion would've killed 500,000-1,000,000 American soldiers. The Japanese had no regard for American life, and would've fought until the bitter end, and the casualties would've exceeded the bomb toll anyway. Dropping the bomb was the only way to end the war without millions dying, and anyone who thinks otherwise should just ask a world war two veteran how brutal the Japanese were.

  • It was very necessary

    The United States used the Atomic bomb to end the war quickly. The alternative to this was an invasion of Japan, which would result in not only deaths in two cities, but in the whole of Japan. This would result in more killing, which is the main argument the naysayers have.

  • The atomic bombing was necessary

    Because Japanese soldiers are taught to fight to the death. Before they die they are commanded to kill as many enemies as they can. They would die in honor of their country. They obeyed everything the emperor would say. Yes innocent people were killed but if we would have told Japan where would be bombing they most likely would have placed prisoners of war there. By dropping the bombs millions of lives were saved from both sides!

  • It was needed

    Without it we wouldn't be here today and the war would still be fought today. When you think about it, the japanese thought that they had to fight to the end- it was their religion thing. If they just kept on fighting, like I said before we would not be here today!

  • You cannot Justify the deaths of so many innocent people.

    Whether or not it was effective, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary. Not only did the bombing itself kill thousands of people, but it led to mass amounts of starvation that killed more people than the bombs. Terrorizing a country into surrendering that was probably going to surrender anyway is inexcusable. The Japanese culture has a strong honor system that makes it very difficult to surrender, but does that mean that they never would have? No. They had that same system of honor after the bombs were dropped, and they surrendered then. Therefore they would have surrendered under traditional circumstances. They were running out of supplies and troops, and if Russia entered the war or even threatened to do so, they certainly would have surrendered. Not only was the bombing unethical, it was unnecessary and unjustified.

  • You cannot Justify the deaths of so many innocent people.

    Whether or not it was effective, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary. Not only did the bombing itself kill thousands of people, but it led to mass amounts of starvation that killed more people than the bombs. Terrorizing a country into surrendering that was probably going to surrender anyway is inexcusable. The Japanese culture has a strong honor system that makes it very difficult to surrender, but does that mean that they never would have? No. They had that same system of honor after the bombs were dropped, and they surrendered then. Therefore they would have surrendered under traditional circumstances. They were running out of supplies and troops, and if Russia entered the war or even threatened to do so, they certainly would have surrendered. Not only was the bombing unethical, it was unnecessary and unjustified.

  • We would've won any way

    The Japanese were already weak in many things that were used in war.They new they had no chance at winning and they were already going to surrender even if we hadn't dropped the bomb.We as Americans who say we give mercy were actually killing many people we killed so many children in schools children like some of us today who actually want a future but they coudln't.

  • We would've won any way

    The Japanese were already weak in many things that were used in war.They new they had no chance at winning and they were already going to surrender even if we hadn't dropped the bomb.We as Americans who say we give mercy were actually killing many people we killed so many children in schools children like some of us today who actually want a future but they coudln't.

  • Unnecessary and Nothing more than scaring the U.S.S.R.

    America had no need to. They had destroyed Japan's Navy and Air Force. All Japan had left were it's army. The U.S.S.R were preparing to launch an attack on the North of Japan a week after the second bomb was dropped. Japan would have surrendered to the U.S.S.R. They had already tried several times. All that stopped it was the 'Unconditional Surrender' that the U.S. demanded. Besides, the Allies had already destroyed many cities in one night with 30,000+ bombs. To Japan it was same result, same time, just less bombs and more expensive for the U.S. The bombing was ONLY to scare the U.S.S.R and show them not to mess with America. Anyone who thinks it is justified should watch 'Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States. Most enlightening 10 hours you will ever see. The first 3 episodes concern WW2 and are the best I think, particularly for this debate.

  • Bombing is not a Valid Battleplan for Winning Wars

    During WWII commanders had this philosophy that strategic bombing could end a war justifiably without suffering significant casualties. Today, we know that is wrong. One, it didn't work conventionally in ending wars. Britain and America tried it on Nazi Germany and it failed and the Allied casualties were tremendous. Two, when it did work we needed to use a weapon of mass destruction. That is hardly reasonable.

    Finally, to have that battleplan work, you need to kill massive amounts of civilians. That is also known as murder. The civilian casualties in Japan was horrific and not acceptable. The damage done to civilian infrastructure was drastic as well. Mass murder is not an option in war. Only military targets should be tolerated and civilians should be avoided. The use of WMD's is not ever an option unless under MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Scorched Earth campaigns should also not be an option. America's decision to use one nuclear weapon was wrong, but two weapons was horrifically wrong. Today, that would a war crime and we would be guilty of mass murder.

    Sources:
    - "Battleplan" documentary on "Strategic Bombing"

  • Mass killing innocent people is never justified

    The U.S.A could end the war without those two bombs by listenning to the demand of redition from the Japanese after U.S army had already burn Tokyo. Used the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as subject of a military experiment is what History will remenber for generations to come. Furthermorethe rest of the world now see it as a proof of weakness, maybe one day american people will understand why.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.