Should we have dropped a bomb on Hiroshima (yes) or have used a blockade (no)?

  • Bro bro bro

    We should have dropped the bomb because I'm in eighth grade and I don't know what I am talking about changing nice jc Eunice. He b nev jvevd jc. Jive v b. Very bush b sub jbcj. By. Jack jbcj nfnc n nfnc I n jc n no njfj f. Fun. Fun nf n f nf n f n. CB. N. N. Nf nf. Fun fn nf nv. Nf. Nf n. Can nf bv n.

  • Blockade Saved Lives

    Using a blockade would have saved more lives. After the island hopping campaign that got U.S. forces within striking distance of Japan in three years, a blockade would have been feasible in August since the war in Europe ended in May. The European fleet could have redeployed to the Pacific. Instead, Truman decided to end the war more swiftly and with deadlier force. There are arguments that a blockade would have meant more war casualties and that Tokyo would have stiffened its defenses. Another D-Day landing in Japan would have cost the U.S. and its allies even more troops. A blockade would have been more humane, but if we hadn't dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Cold War might have gone differently as the use of nuclear weapons was not a deterrent since they had never been used in a combat situation.

  • Avoiding nuclear weapons at all cost is the only answer in war.

    I understand the reason that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. But as a human being possessed of empathy I cannot possibly condone such a tragic use of weaponry that affects not only human people, but the environment. Any other course of action should have been pursued first, in my opinion.

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