Pros (yes) and cons (no) of using the atomic bomb on Japan.

  • Our world has too big of a population.

    Our planet has way too many people and this is a problem. With so many people, resources are limited and thats why having less people is a good thing. Therefore, with the nuclear bomb, the United States was able to reduce the population of our planet, which is a really good thing

  • It Was Very Much Needed!

    I think that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was very important to the number of casualties we would have lost if we had sent men to defeat Japan. We would have still won, but it would have cost the U.S. more American soldiers and more expenses (weapons, transportation, etc). When we would have won either way.

  • Please drop it

    Look i love america but im just pissed that marijuana is not legal. Hundreds upon thousands of innocent people were killed during the bombings. The main casualties were the lives of innocents, not of military personnel. It ended the war sooner. And granted innocent people were killed in the dropping of the bomb, many innocent civilians were killed throughout the war.

  • We were not wrong

    We would have been wasting time figuring out how to stop the war while Japan was building the bomb to use on us. We would have lost and they would have killed us all. It was a good idea other wise none of us would be here and it wouldn't be called the U.S.A anymore ppl

  • People were hated at that time

    They were Asian and we didn't like Asians so we had to kill them to win the war. If we had more Asians we would have lost the war and maybe there would be no US anymore. Any ways Asians were killing themselves it was a better way to make them die faster

  • A Pyrrhic Victory (See Comments)

    The issue of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has received much controversy over the years. On one hand, there is the fact of thousands of civilian lives lost, and the destruction of two cities. On the other, a countless number of both American, and Japanese lives saved. It is difficult to say with certainty which, if either, was the right choice. However, some things are certain.

    The first of which is, the fact that without the bombs having been used by the U.S. first, another country such as the U.S.S.R. Would have been the first to use such weapons of annihilation. Who can say for certain that the Soviets would have stopped after just two strikes? Another thing to think about is, where would they have used those weapons? Would they have deployed them on centers of strategic military development like we did, or would they have used them on cities of high political importance, such as Tokyo, killing not thousands, but hundreds of thousands, possibly millions? The fact of this matter is that there was a major lack of communication between the allied parties. The United States had been developing an atomic weapon since before the fall of European theatre. During conferences held by the allies, representatives of the U.S. such as Truman, dropped subtle hints at the development of a weapon such as the atomic bomb. Also, during these conferences, U.S.S.R representative and leader Joseph Stalin had plans of his own for development of such weapons, and was possibly aware of the United States’ development plans as well. Stalin, however, said nothing about these issues. Instead, he kept them secret. This, ironically, made the United Kingdom the only major superpower with good and honest intentions.

    Another key point to remember is the fact of how limited options were. None of the allied parties wanted the bloodshed to continue. The Soviets had already lost millions of lives during the European theatre alone, and they were leading the charge on pushing the Japanese out of China. They would go on to mount a death toll of somewhere between 21,800,000 and 28,000,000. The United Kingdom had lost hundreds of thousands, and would also be helping with the war in the pacific. They would go on to mount a death toll of 450,900. The United States entered the war fighting on both the Atlantic and the Pacific fronts. They would go on to mount a death toll of 420,000. ...

  • Warned Japan, pigheadedness of Emperor Hirohito, and safety of American soldiers.

    Potsdam Declaration warned the Emperor what would happen if he did not surrender. The US limited the bombings to Hiroshima (military base) and Nagasaki (war-industrious city). America dropped leaflets to the citizens calling for the Japanese people to petition the Emperor for surrender. After Hiroshima, America asked again for a peaceful surrender as the only way to end the war. After Nagasaki, the Japanese finally surrendered, then the US stopped the bombings. If Japan would've surrendered in the first place, America would not have bombed them. The action saved an estimated 500,000-1,000,000 US soldiers by not invading by land and sea.

  • I agree ...Just a kid from reedley,california age 16... 4/15/15!!! A.K.A Gus

    Yes because it would have saved us thousands of soldiers ,and also japan would have used a bomb on us. Even though we did kill millions of innocent civilians, it ended the war in the pacific which leaded to victory of the war in the pacific.It also left so much radiation on Japan for millions of years.All in all i believe we should because it we got revenge from their attack on us on pearl harbor.

  • The United States had to use a weapon powerful enough to end WWII

    The atomic Bomb cause the war to end 4 days after the bomb was dropped when Japan surrounded on september 2nd 1945. Why the bomb killed over 200,000 people in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki it did prevent the United States, and Japan from going to was and many more soldiers dying. President Truman wanted what was best for the country. President Truman said he it was to powerful for the military to keep control of only the president can order to have it dropped, but he never thought the country shouldn't have used it during the time.

  • It was a necessary

    I think we had no choice when it came to dropping the bomb on them after what they did to Pearl Harbor and all and it was necessary to end the WWII. If we did not drop the bomb then we probably would have still been fighting the war today.

  • No, there are no pros to dropping the bomb.

    The United States did an awful thing when it dropped the atomic bomb on Japan. If it was aimed at a military target, it is not remembered for that. It is remembered because of the civilian people whose lives were ruined by this horrible action and the terror that the photos reveal.

  • No, there were many reasons not to use the bombs.

    Japan was ready to surrender because of so many side attacks. The American refusal to surrender let the Japanese keep their emperor. The US could of done a demonstration, and it would've convinced Japans leaders to surrender without killing tons of innocent people. Plus, once we bombed Hiroshima, we sent out a message warning the Japanese of the damage done to the city. BUT! We didn't allow that message to even reach them before we bombed Nagasaki. The bomb was also unjustified with the 2 million dollars spent of it's production. Japanese had already been sacrificing their lives in kamikazes for power politics between the US and The Soviet Union; who was going to also join the war on our side within a few weeks of the bombing. Also, firebombing would have also been just as effective in causing all that damage, and making the US the first country to use nuclear weapons. We'd already been firebombing Tokyo, so why not just fire bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

  • Unnecessary slaughter of innocent people.

    The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were highly unnecessary, Japan was already of the verge of surrender because of the losses in side battles. The bombings largely affected the Japanese civillians, not military personnel. The government covered up this mistake by saying that the bombs were needed to end the war, which is not true. President Truman justified this attack with this reason, "because of America's hatred of the Japanese and a desire for vengeance" hatred and vengeance is NO reason to demolish two Japanese cities, kill hundreds of thousands of people and affect the land for hundreds of years to come.

  • It was an act of terrorism as the victims were innocent civilians.

    Perhaps the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have fought back, but we didn't give them a chance to surrender or give up, we just ended their lives instantly, no chances given. A blockade would have been much more effective because it would have starved the troops and taken away oil that their military vehicles needed to do anything.

  • USA should have negotiated! It would save many lives and $2 billion!

    The United States seemed to be in a rush when dropping the bomb to assert themselves as the supreme power, hardly giving much time for peace treaties or ceasefire. This action was an act of terrorism assuming that Japanese Emperor would succumb to the pressure but not as much of a terrorist action as the Japanese soldiers who took the food and resources of Nagasaki and Hiroshima citizens, causing more deaths due to starvation than the actual bomb!

  • Japan is a great place

    Its not fair to the people of japan to burn their land and to kill innocent
    people. They have beautiful land and they are loving. I believe they just wanted peace. We should not kill anyone. Even if they hurt us.
    I thin (know) that we can be better than that.
    I live in japan and i am so greatful for how kind th
    we start peace and not war!!!!!

  • Unnecessary, Immoral, and Extreme

    Dropping the atomic bomb was an extreme route that could have been avoided. Millions of innocent people were murdered, and the culture and landscape were destroyed. Also, the radiation from the bomb caused the land to be unlivable for many years and it took an outrageous amount of money to repair the land. Although we sent word to Japan that we would drop an atomic bomb, we never gave them time to receive the warning, so technically dropping the bomb was an act of terrorism. Furthermore, in situations with such extreme warfare, everyone is scared to be the first to use such a weapon, but once it is done, nobody will hesitate to use it. Even though the Japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor, two wrongs do not make a right. There were surely better routes that Truman could have and SHOULD have taken.

  • To many innocent lives lost

    The soldiers of our country and theirs knew what they where in for , they knew they had a big chance of dyeing in the war but not the innocent people. A total of 129,000–246,000+ were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most of those lives were innocent woman and children. Do you really wan that on your conscience that you are responsible for the lost lives of children and women, that you are responsible for the thousands of children who did't get to live their lives because of our rash choses. Maybe the bombing did end the war sooner but was the the cost of it worth it.

  • The bombing was completely unnecessary.

    Japan was already prepared to surrender, hoping to reduce the killing of their people even more. Instead, America decides to massacre two major cities and provided an after effect that is still affecting people today. Hundreds upon thousands of innocent people were killed during the bombings. The main casualties were the lives of innocents, not of military personnel.

  • Bombings not a Justice.

    For me, it feels as though the bombing was a harsh and not fully thought out plan. Japan was ready to surrender, but was given almost no time to actually do so because of Truman. Not only that, but it caused a wide killing of INNOCENT people, it was a terrorist attack to put it in the most bluntest way possible. And it was completely unnecessary. It was immoral and unfair, Japan had no idea what was coming to them.

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