Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by:

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.
Anonymous says2013-05-15T02:08:37.333
Its not that the Emperor "stepped in" to surrender, it was more of him finally realizing that he can't fight this type of force along with the threat of the Soviet Union. "It was him that kept the war going as long as it did.
Anonymous says2013-05-21T08:11:55.830
Both bombs were dropped within a short time of each other, they were still trying to figure out what was going on by the time the second one was dropped, the Americans didn't give the Japanese a chance to surrender between the explosions.
Anonymous says2013-05-29T00:33:51.007
The President of the U.S. Didn't know about the first bomb dropping. They didn't warn them that there would be mass destruction. They only didn't surrender because they didn't understand that we wanted to let them keep their ruler. We did inform them that that was the plan but they just didn't understand that process.
Anonymous says2013-06-01T13:38:35.823
By August 1945, Japan was practically defeated. The bomb wasnt a milliatary necessity to win!
Anonymous says2013-06-20T15:06:50.157
90% of the people killed by the "little boy" bomb had no say about surrendering or bombing Pearl Harbor so why kill them? The military used this as an excuse to drop the bombs to see the effects it would have on live populations, after Germany's defeat the Japanese had nothing left they could do but say they weren't going to surrender. Kill the leaders not the people that had nothing to do with the war
zenRoxas says2013-10-31T00:01:53.667
I... Like... Trains...
skye.krueger says2014-04-17T14:43:38.817
President Truman was there to see one of the bombs being tested in desert land the government bought specifically to test nuclear weaponry. He wrote it down in his journal, describing the destruction it did to buildings and light poles hundreds of yards from where it was dropped, and describing as the most terrible weapon ever created. He knew exactly what would happen when that bomb was dropped, because he had a whole team of officials to consult with about all the possible outcomes of dropping the bomb. As for them not surrendering after the first bomb, I don't think anyone could have believed people to be able to drop two bombs that caused so much destruction. What kind of people can justify killing all those people, especially after they saw all the destruction the first atom bomb caused? The atom bomb was no where near necessary to end the war, America could've been the ones to surrender
angel_lermond says2014-04-24T16:57:47.760
If we had to do something more to make them surrender we could of sent troops over that made it seem like they had no chance. We didn’t have to Bomb them twice with a weapon that was only used in testing before this. Also The U.S. could have surrendered since we were already losing, but nope, they had to let their ego get in the way. Yes it takes a man to drop a bomb that lots of people want to so go off, but it takes a better man to go and find another way to deal with his issues.
A main thing that was very wrong in the decision making process was when the president said that he could see no other solution. There were plenty of other solutions. Also the president saw, in one of the tests that he watched, that there was a ton of destruction that would happen when this bomb is dropped, yet he still chose to drop it. It was a very wrong thing to do.
TimothyChan says2014-06-15T07:41:40.053
However, it is not dicide by Japan citizens, So why US need to kill someone that is innocent?
seby1231 says2014-10-05T17:43:48.800
True but we did not give them any time to surrender.
historybuff123 says2015-04-08T02:56:30.467
Skye is probably just a Japanese nationalist who might not exist if we invaded.
Kittykat9876 says2015-04-08T17:19:06.013
Do you think that the US would've surrendered under the same circumstances?
HeavenlyPanda says2016-07-15T21:23:44.287
One bomb was enough. Killing innocent civilians is a low blow that the Americans dealt.
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.