Wednesday, April 26. 2006
Read the following article on the dropping of a Nuclear weapon on Hiroshima & then answer/discuss the questions at the end.
1.Was President Harry Truman justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima?
2.Why did he choose to drop a second bomb on Nagasaki & was this justified?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
1) I believe that the Hiroshima bombing was justified. Though the casualty count in Hiroshima is huge, it is at the expense of others that peace is made. More lives could have been destroyed if this had not happened because the Japanese had determination unmatched by others. The atomic bomb was the only way to win the war. If the fighting continued, those civilians might have become soldiers as well, and they might have died the same way. This bombing is not really different from other bombs dropped on other places with soldiers. People seem to forget that soldiers are still regular human beings, and if bombs on both sides were justified, why is the bomb on Hiroshima so different from the others? Also, if this had not happened, more people would have died more than the Hiroshima death count, and perhaps even more would have died in Japan's desperation to win.
2) President Harry S. Truman wanted to drop a second bomb on Nagasaki because he had another bomb and he wanted to keep bombing until the Japanese surrendered. I do not believe that this was justified because there were a lot more lives that could have been saved if they did not drop the bomb. Americans had already shown what they could do with their atomic bombs. They did not need to show off their power again. They did not have to bomb Nagasaki when they already had Hiroshima as an example of what they could do. The Japanese might have surrendered if the Americans gave them time to surrender, and they could threaten Japan to surrender using only Hiroshima as an example. Nagasaki was not needed. Also, if the Japanese had not surrendered, the Americans would have been at a weak spot. There were no more overly powerful bombs in their stock, and it might have taken many more months to rebuild again. Within this time, the Japanese could have regained their defenses and kept fighting. It would have been safer if the Americans had just threatened the Japanese while keeping an ace up their sleeve just in case.
Do you really think it was justified though? I mean think about it..yes millions of people would die in the war, but think about the innocent people who had no idea the bomb was going to be dropped. While the soldiers that knew that sometime they would die, the poor citizens of hiroshima and nagasaki did not. They were unaware of the bomb and did not leave unharmed. Even if they did live, they were affected by the radiation later on. How is this fair at all? [Your welcome for replying]
I agree with you. Although it ended the war quicker, I think that there could've been another way to end the war without harming thousands of innocent people. Compared to the lives lost in Pearl Harbor, there were much worse effects of the bombs. Not only did it kill thousands of people, it also changed the lives of the survivors completely, as shown in the article.
I disagree about the fact that there could have been another way to avoid the casualties of innocent Japanese. If we think about it, towards the end of the war, Japan was getting weaker, however, their resistance was still strong. The Japanese were willing to fight till death and it was just a matter of time before the Japanese were defeated. If the bombs had not been dropped, there would have been no way to weaken the Japanese mentality than to convince the emperor, and he then would relay the message throughout the Japanese.
It's not like the civilians were not aware of the war. World War II was EVERYWHERE, and they were used to the bombings. Those people even ignored the planes because too many had already came, and it wasn't significant anymore. All people contributed to the war effort, even the children.
When did the Japanese attack American civilians? Is it really realistic to say that if the U.S. killed the same amount of people at a military target that the Japanese would have reacted any differently? Also, can we really justify saving lives by taking them?
I second both opinions written above. 1)President Truman was justified in dropping the bomb on Hiroshima because it ended the war. He used Hiroshima to set an example of what the Americans were capable of and sent a message to the Japanese that they should just surrender now instead of risking any more lives. Yes there were innocent civilian lives lost or destroyed forever, but they were just casuaties of war. Ultimately, the atomic bomb did what it was supposed to do and ended the war. If the war continued, the U.S would have emerged victorious because Japan had no way of defending itself. However, in the long run more lives would've been lost, American and Japanese, in war than the bombing of Hiroshima.
2) However, I feel the second bombing on Nagasaki was unnessesary. Truman wanted to keep bombing to make sure the Japanese surrendered, but perhaps the emporer was already considering peace. Drastic times call for drastic measures like in Hiroshima, but we had already demonstrated what the Americans were cabable of. Why harm more innocent people? So many lives could've been saved if we didn't drop the second bomb. Once again, the civilians were just casualties of war, but in Nagasaki they didn't have to be.
While I agree that the United States was justified in dropping the atomic bomb, this logic could also be applied to modern problems. What is stopping us from ending wars early by using a nuclear bomb on countries with vastly inferior weapons systems that we have, allowing no one the possibility or hope of surviving the blast? Again, I agree with previous posts, however this angle needs to be seriously considered.
1. President Harry Truman was justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. The Japanese military and Japanese civilians made it very clear that they would fight until the very end. If the bomb was not dropped it is most likely the United Sates military would have to had to make a land assault on Japan, resulting in more American deaths and roughly the same number of civilian deaths.
2.President Truman chose to drop a second bomb on Nagasaki because the Japanese government was not surrendering after the Hiroshima bomb. This was justified because the Japanese were not going to surrender with only us dropping “Little Boy”. Many people proclaim that this caused a large number of unneeded civilian deaths and they are right, many civilians were killed. Although I believe this was needed because if we were to fight them any other way the Japanese people had proven to us that they were willing to commit suicide to get away from the Americans. If we were to not drop the bomb then we would have continued to use napalm on other Japan areas that would have resulted in many civilian deaths as well.
3.I do agree that the dropping of these bombs were horrible and very gruesome, but I strongly believe that it was the best option to save the most American lives. Imagine if Japan had won, they would have turned these bombings into something the nation survived and rose back from, so we have to assume that without the dropping of these bombs the Japanese would have pushed back against our surrounding military forces.
4.In response to Jonah K. We do have to think about that. Although the option of dropping more bombs is available, the repercussions would deeply outweigh the intended effect.
1) I think it was justified for Truman to drop the bomb on Japan because he did it to end the war earlier. By ending the war earlier, it would have saved much more lives. Though the bomb did kill many people, more would have died if the war continued because the Japanese will not give up until they fight to the death.
2) Truman decided to drop a second bomb on Nagasaki probably to show the Japanese government and military he has more atomic bombs. I do not think this was justified because the bomb he dropped on Hiroshima already showed Japan how powerful the bombs are. Truman could have just threatened Japan that he would drop another atomic bomb on them unless they surrender.
I agree with the posts Amber and Selena wrote.
I agree with you. Truman could have just threatened the Japanese to give in to them instead of really dropping a second bomb. The second bomb was really unnecessary. When the first bomb was dropped, if not the bomb, then the radiation would have killed many people. Truman did not have to drop the second bomb.
Contrary to your opinion, I believe that Truman had to drop the second atomic bomb, Fat Man. Japanese leaders, upon hearing the destruction of the first atomic bomb, were amazingly still split up about whether to surrender or face and invasion. Truman, at the time, was most likely considering the potential decisions of the Japanese government and decided not to risk the invasion. The second bomb dropped on Nagasaki did the job and Japan surrendered to the allies on August 14, 1945.
But if you think about it, using simple words such as "Oh, we're going to drop another bomb" would be sufficient enough. Don't you agree? It would've saved many of those that suffered from radiation and had to receive many operations or those that burned to death and were trapped. Dropping the bomb on Nagasaki just seems like a waste of materials and equipment. Plus it also motivates communists countries that atomic bombs are amazing by showing off their powers even more.
I agree with you. I think that if Truman didn't drop the second bomb, Japan might've still not surredered. And the only way to make sure they surrender is to drop another bomb.
1)I believe Truman was justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan because it not only weakened Japan, but it also was a fair comeback due to Pearl Harbor. Japan needed to be stopped and dropping a bomb on them would put fear into the Japanese, which would make them think twice before doing any actions to the United States. This atomic bomb saved many american lives and vehicles, and basically ended the battle in the pacific between the US and Japan. If Truman didn't do this, the US would be losing more vehicles, men, and money because of future fighting. In conclusion, this was a good action Truman did for the United States and the world.
2)After bombing Hiroshima, Truman bombed Nagasaki because he wanted to put fear in the Japanese and wanted to make a clear statement of how powerful the US was, so that the Japanese could think twice about doing something to the US. In contrast to my 1st opinion, I believe this bomb was unnecessary because he already made a statement in Hiroshima and he was just killing more people in Japan. I also believe that the civilians in Japan didn't have to do anything in the war so it was not their fault Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Just like Japan bombed a military site in Hawaii but not a village, city, etc., the United States could have done the same and take less innocent lives. After all, Truman made his statement to Japan and that is what matters.
1. I think President Truman made a right decision to drop bombs on Japan because it was the Japanese that attacked Pearl Harbor first and that killed a lot of Americans too. So it was completely fair for him to create damage to Japan. And since Japan surrendered afterwards, the war ended quicker and less people died.
2. I believe the reason President Truman bombed Nagasaki was to show the Japanese how strong and powerful America really was and to make sure Japan would surrender.
Looking at the bombing of Hiroshima from a different point of view, it was not quite justified. Saying that we did it because they bombed Pearl Harbor first is like a child saying that he hit his sister because she did it to him first. The president could have found another, less violent way to force the Japanese to surrender. The effects of the atomic bomb were extremely harsh and ruined and took the lives of many innocent people.
I agree with Nadia that there could've been a better way to end the war. Japan's navy, airforce, and army had all been destroyed and they didn't really pose as much of a threat to us. Also we had the island surrounded and had cut their supply lines so we would have eventually starved them out. Intead of bombing millions of people, Truman could have just threatened the Japanese with the atomic bomb or demonstrtated it on a target. If they still won't surrender, then Truman could bomb Japan and say he gave a fair warning, unlike what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.
I disagree with you with the second bomb. America already showed how strong we are with the first bomb. America could have threatened Japan that we would drop another bomb on them if they don't surrender.
I agree with you Klaire. Truman had already shown not only Japan but the whole world America's power by dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. It was unnecessary to drop the second bomb before finding out what the Japanese would do. Truman should have threatened to use the bomb and waited for an answer. This way, fewer lives might have been lost.
1. I believe that President Truman was somewhat justified in his bombing of Hiroshima. His actions prevented more loss of live in World War II and helped avoid a waste of more resources and lives than if they had done an invasion of Japan. However, the bombing of Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and caused radiation that killed thousands later on.
2. I believe that President Truman ordered the bombing of Nagasaki because he wanted to show the power of American technology at the time. He gave an indirect message that if the Japanese didn't surrender, it would result in more casualties. I don't believe that Truman was justified in dropping a second bomb, as his point was already made during the bombing of Hiroshima. However, this bombing affirmed his resolve for Japan to surrender and his plan was effective, although at a cost of thousands of innocent lives.
1) I believe the bombing of Hiroshima was justified. It was done as a way to end the war. If the U.S. had invaded Japan instead, many more people might have died because of their honor. No matter what, people would have died. People die in wars and this would have been the same.
2) Truman wanted to bomb Nagasaki to force the Japanese to surrender. He wanted to make sure that they understood the power the U.S. has. However, I do not think that it is justified. He made this exact point when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and it was not really necessary to do this. I agree with Klaire: if the president wanted to restate his point, he could have threatened the Japanese with it.
The topic of the Hiroshima bomb is very controversial even to today, which is why I've decided to view it from another perspective and found the bombing was not justified. 200,000 lives were lost directly from the blast and others who did weeks later from radiation. Even their water supply was poisoned so after Japanese civilians were blasted with the heat of 10 suns they couldn't even quench their thirst to find some kind of relief. The eyewitness account states her own mother tried to kill her because she looked like a monster. The bomb killed many people and destroyed the lives of the survivors. These were innocent civilians who had no control over their country's actions. There could've been a less destructive yet still effective solution or perhaps if the war continued, it would only have gone on for a little while longer and lost fewer lives than Hiroshima.
I agree with Amber that there could have been a less destructive way to get Japan to surrender. We could have bombed a militarized city that the emperor wasn't in since the only reason we didn't bomb Tokyo was because the emperor lived there. However, drastic times call for drastic measures.
I second Klaire and Amber because even though people would've died even if we didn't drop the bomb, those people would be ones who were willing to die. Not innocent children, adults, and the elderly. But I agree with Nadia on the subject of the Nagasaki bombing. Another bomb was not needed to be dropped, they could have just threatened the Japanese with it.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is justified in my opinion b/c it saved many more lives than it had killed. The civillians inhabiting the islands that the allies were invading were committing suicide rather than letting themselves be captured. So the civillians in Japan also influenced with the same propaganda might have also committed suicide if we had invaded. Imagine if every citizen in Japan committed suicide. That would be a genocide. Not only did this nuke prevent Japanese deaths but it also prevented the deaths of many American soldiers. The battle for Iwo Jima itself caused over 27,000 US casualties, and that's just one island. Imagine taking over all of Japan. Winston Churchill later estimated that the nuking of Japan saved 1 million American and 250 thousand British soldiers and sailers. Yes, we did kill 100,000 and then 200,000 people, but consider how many more U.S, British, and Japanese people we saved.
1) I believe that President's Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb was somewhat justified. In this process of dropping the bomb, he avoided the idea of any Americans having to invade Japan and going through the city itself. The bomb would've avoided more lives being lost. Whether we dropped the bomb or not, lives still would've been lost. But I still believe that it was unjustified as well. Dropping this bomb only gave thoughts to other countries of our cruelty. It's given communist countries, such as North Korea, the thought that maybe threatening people with atomic bombs is alright. It's like dealing with little kids and telling them that sometimes lying is okay. This goes through their mind as an idea that lying is ALWAYS okay and should be their escape route. As you can see, if this bomb was dropped or even created, we might not have the hostile world we have today.
2) I think the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was a BIG no no. As silly as that sound to phrase it that way, dropping the bomb was not needed. We already dropped one and killed innocent lives so why is it that we had to drop another one? On top of that the Japanese most likely got our message and most likely knew we had more bombs. So why is it that we had to bother with another bomb? In result, more people died for the reason of us proving to the Japanese that we're ready to take them down.
Actually, there's a possibility that the world would be more hostile if these weapons weren't created. For example, if some countries had stronger weapons than others, those countries might feel like they are in danger. Those countries would plot to create better weapons that the other countries would fear. The cycle would start over and over again until you had some sort of a battle to become the most powerful country. With these bombs, it is possible to create peace because everyone is unable to attack each other unless they wanted to blow up the world. Nowadays, it's too dangerous for any new world wars.
We have to also think about how dropping the atomic bomb changes the weapon warfare to create even more advanced technology that kills people even faster. If US didn't create the atomic bomb, the weapon technology would be different today. Civilians around the world may could have still survived.
I believe that the Hiroshima bombing was not justified because we just killed so many innocent lives in less than a minute. True, we would've lost some lives, but we could have just surrounded the island with our carriers and cruisers to starve them into submission. I think we could have spent some more time slowly starving them instead of killing innocent people. What if during world war 2, we were not the ones who bombed Japan, but they bombed us? We would've surrendered and lost even more lives. Then would you think it's justified?
(continuation of above, still one blog)
2. The bombing of Nagasaki was not one bit more justified than the Hiroshima bombing. It just adds coal to the fire. I don't understand why the president would want to drop two massive bombs on innocent cities with no value just to make Japan surrender. It's like stabbing someone who just got shot by a murderer, why would you do that? They didn't do anything wrong. Besides, they can't fight back or protect themselves.
There are some reasons why it was justified though. If the bomb hadn't been dropped and the war continued, more lives than those in Hiroshima would have been lost. If we just slowly starved the Japanese out, wouldn't that also kill thousands of people if they cant get resources? And theoretically if we tried to surround Japan and do that, what if we failed? Many more lives would have been lost.
In contrast to my opinion above, I agree about Truman not being justified in dropping a bomb in Hiroshima. The reason I think this is because the Japanese bombed a military base where there were American ships but not a city with innocent people that aren't involved with the war. I believe that the least the US could have done is bomb a military base like the Japanese did, and that would get them even.
1)Like everything, there are two sides of a story, with the Japanese the bombing was a tragic accident that annihilated their family, friends, and etc,but on the other side of the war, America was just doing so to first of all end the war as quickly as possible and secondly to help the Americans who had family at Pearl Harbor to gain the satisfaction of revenge. So if one was to look at the American side, it would justified, while on the Japanese side it was not.
2)He dropped the bomb to exert his power and to make other countries afraid of America's power and so killed many innocent lives. Also he destroyed more resources and land, causing damage to Japan. Now in my opinion, this is not justified, Truman used his bomb and killed the innocent lives of the already unfortunate, by exerting this supreme power, he could have found a more peaceful way to gain power and dominance but instead chose the one that would benefit mankind.
1)I believe that President Truman was justified in dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. I believe this because Japan had taken too many lives of American soldiers that have been fighting for their country waiting to go home to their families. Even though the atom bomb caused many deaths and injuries,it was seen as the only option. The Japanese were using their caves to their advantage. They would hide and ambush American units. An example of their caves is Iwo Jima. The Japanese would rather die than give up fighting, which made it a lot harder for the Allies to fight them.
2)I believe that President Truman decided to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki because he wanted to ensure his victory over the Japanese. I believe that he did not have to drop the second bomb because the first bomb already pushed the Japanese back into a corner. Without the second bomb, I still believe that the Allies would have won. I believe that Truman dropping the second bomb is not justified because of this. The second bomb was overkill.
I agree because the Japanese fought to the death. They didn't care who had the bigger tide, they just fought because they were ordered to and they are fighting for their country. If the Allies kept on fighting with Japanese morale still high, it would take a lot lives of both sides than the bombing of Hiroshima. The bombing of Nagasaki was also unnecessary because the Japanese had already lost. It lost even more lives for the Japanese and gave the U.S a bad influence to the modern world.
The bombing on Hiroshima was in the extreme i can understand that. We targeted such an innocent area. The question is was it justified? The estimate death toll of we didn't bomb Hiroshima was high. Who knows how far the Japanese would have gone to protect their country? Men/soldiers their were already willing to give up their lives by flying a plane right to the ground or women jumping off cliffs from the fear of foreign countries invading. So we took the easy way out by bombing Hiroshima by saving lives... well they did it to lighten the casualties. So I sadly agree that it was justified even thou we gave a horrific fate to innocent people.
The second bombing i have to say was going too far. By sending one it was clear of what the message was but two that is going way too far. the second bombing was not justified at all.
1. I think that president Harry Truman, for the most part, was justified for dropping the bomb. Although 200,000 lives were lost, we'll never know if more would have been lost if the war had continued. If the bomb had not dropped and the war hadn't ended, people would still be dying and fighting. Although I think he mostly was justified, there is still doubt. I think that there could have been another way to end the war without killing innocents, but there wasn’t enough time to think of one. But again, since we have no way of knowing what could have happened, there is also a possibility that the Japanese would have agreed to peace on other terms.
2. I don’t believe that the bombing on Nagasaki was entirely justified. Nagasaki was bombed because president Truman wanted complete surrender from the Japanese. Thousands already died in Hiroshima, so why does another city have to be bombed? The Japanese could have possibly just surrendered with one bombing. If they didn't, then we could decide to drop another one if it were completely necessary.
1) I think the bombing of Hiroshima was justified because this ended the war that could have lasted longer if we didn't. The problem I have with this though is that we didn't show them the power of the atomic bomb first to see if they would decide to surrender then. I think that the U.S. should of shown Japan the power of the atomic bomb we held then give them a choice to surrender or have it blown in one of their territories. If they decide to surrender then, the bombs wouldn't have to be dropped on any lives. If they still decide to fight, then we could drop the bombs. Then again, since the war ended because of this bomb, I believe it was justified. It saved many more lives on both sides.
2) I believe that the bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary. When we bombed Hiroshima, the Japanese were already on the edge to surrendering. The U.S. should have given Japan a chance to surrender after bombing Hiroshima. That way, if the Japanese decided to surrender, this bomb would be gone and more lives could have been spared.
I agree with you, the U.S should have warned them about the second bomb. I believe that if they knew there was another bomb like the one that hit Hiroshima, they would surrender almost immediately. The Japanese did not have to lose that much people.
But you also have to consider what the Japanese would have done to the U.S if we gave them a second chance to attack. There may be an even greater offensive move by the Japanese. If hundreds and thousands of innocent people from your country were just murdered, wouldn't you want to avenge them with every thing you have at your disposal? Therefore, there could be an upside to our second bombing on Japan. Another factor to consider is, we want to win the war in the fastest possible way; the side-effects can be accounted for after we win. The main objective of the U.S is to win and end the bloodshed for our own country. Japan just needed that extra push to surrender. Their resistance is extremely scary ie. fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands and their bombardments of Kamikaze attacks. We would rather be safe then sorry.
They should have also given the Japanese time to tell the US if they were going to surrender or not after the first atomic bombing. Regardless if the Japanese were going to surrender or not, the US just decided to use the second atomic bomb 3 days after the first just so they could play with their toys. Had the US been merciful after the first bomb, all the lives in Nagasaki could have been spared.
As a weapon of war, the atomic bomb should not have been used. The sheer enormity of the death toll with no loss to American forces was easy to the point of being dishonorable because in war, each side should have the chance to fight. Japan could not retaliate, and the civilian deaths are pointless because it is the government's fault for the war. Also, the nuclear waste was harmful to future generations because of the radiation saturating their land, further negating the use of the atomic bomb. Although there were many suicides in Iwo Jima, using nuclear bombs to create radiation and instant death should not have been the answer.
What Serene said really puts me in a state that don't really know what side to take. The day before I said it was justified but now I'm not so sure. We dropped the bomb in Hiroshima without the Japanese knowing. Don't you think that we could have threatened to use this bomb instead of dropping it on to a unsuspecting Japan especially a innocent city like Hiroshima. Just out of the blue we happen to drop something never seen by the world and a new kind of destructive force that changes warfare forever. I find that unfair and not to mention the affects of the bomb. Radiation that causes cancer in the near future and leaving the victims scarred for life. No warning and then bomb... was it really justified. Maybe?
I agree completely...This topic is very controversial, but dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was neccesary. I think the only concern is the second bomb that we dropped on Nagasaki. Don't you agree? What's the point of dropping a second bomb when we could just warn them instead of killing millions off.. So the dropping of the atomic bomb is somewhat justified and somewhat not justified
I completely agree with Serene. It's not cool to be recognized as the people who won a war with a huge advantage over our opponents. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. I wonder what would've happened if we showed the Japanese what the bomb could do, and then threaten to use it on them. Think they would've surrendered? Although I'm kinda unsure because the Japanese could have stalled for more time while planning another surprise attack.
I agree that the atomic bomb was an unnecessary and excessive weapon. The radiation that was left over was awful, and at the point where the U.S. can fly three planes all over Japan, we could have bombed them with a more, less powerful bombs. This would have a slightly less horrific result, and wouldn't have exposed the world into a nuclear arms race. Regardless of the bombing, the bomb used was a bad idea.
The US should have just chosen a less populated, and of higher military value, location to have dropped the bomb on, even if it was the right thing to do. It would then kill less civilians that wouldn't have retaliated and demonstrated the bomb's power effectively. Dropping the bombs on densely populated cities while Japan was severely weak was just the US getting revenge on Japan for starting a war the US did not want to fight in. Since the US has such high morals compared to the rest of the world, revenge was the wrong thing to do.
I have to agree, the US didn't even know that by using the atomic bombs, there would be radiation for future generations. US was also causing immense damage to the Earth itself.
Even though using the atomic bomb on Japan can be justified, bombing an innocent place like Hiroshima is unacceptable. The people of Hiroshima were just living, not trying to do anything to hurt America. The United States should have bombed the troops or the capital because not only would it hurt the people that are (*trying*) to kill Americans, but you also get rid of their army and their government which would completely enable them to fight back. If you dismember the brain, the operation will fail.
As for Nagasaki, there really is no excuse. America should have not dropped "Fat Man". Not only was it unnecessary, but it also killed and ruined even (*more*) lives than ever necessary. It made America look heartless to the whole world. Even the girl in the story expected Americans to be mean and awful toward her, because essentially we were the ones that destroyed her life. Sadly, our governments' decisions label us all. But in the end, we were really the ones that tried to help her have a normal life again. Japan was the one that told her she couldn't have any help because she was poor, but despite her bank account or lack there of, we took her, and many others under our wings. Who is the bad guy now.
Agreed. The people of Hiroshima had no control over Japans morale to fight to the death or the government to surrender. It would have been more necessary if they had bombed the people the actually fought against the U.S and not an innocent city. This would also reduce the deaths from the bombing.
I believe that the bombings of Hiroshima were not justified by the reason of it saving " a million American lives". That is because of how weak the Japanese were compared to the United States at that stage of the war. The Japanese had no navy, air force, or stable supplies to supply itself. Had the US just surrounded the island, preventing any supplies from getting in, the Japanese would have surrendered eventually or die from starvation. The US had the backup of both Russia and the United Kingdom, so it was inevitable that Japan was going to be defeated. Alternatives to the solution would be to demonstrate one of the nuclear weapons on an abandoned island in the Japanese Pacific to their leaders and, when seeing how powerful the weapon was, get him to surrender; or to just use conventional light bombing of cities for they will cause less damage and deaths. It was completely unnecessary to have bombed Nagasaki after HIroshima because the US had already demonstrated its point of that the bomb was extremely powerful. The second atomic bombing was merely just a way to burn up lives for no purpose. The Japanese had already agreed to surrender before the Nagasaki attack, but the message was not transmitted fast enough to prevent the atomic blast.
I have to disagree about the nuclear bombing in Hiroshima, it was understandable because of certain circumstances. For example, Japan did bomb Pearl Harbor in the first place and that did a lot of damage to us too. We, the US bombing Hiroshima was, I believe the only way that we could stop the war between the United States and Japan. If we were to wait until they surrendered that would probably mean that we would have to watch more soldiers and civilians die. It would have been a bigger impact if we were to drag out the war between the U.S. and Japan.
But I do agree with you that the bombing of Nagasaki was uncalled for. The U.S. did do a lot of damage to Hiroshima and that the Japanese knew that the U.S. is a very strong country. Therefore they would probably had surrendered after the bombing in Hiroshima.
I think that the U.S. was justified when they attacked Hiroshima. The U.S. knew that using the atomic bomb was the only way to end the war and save many American lives. On the other hand, the U.S. knew that using the atomic bomb would lead to disastrous effects. If the Americans use the atomic bomb, they would be responsible for the many civilians that would be killed. Using the atomic bomb would also reveal the U.S’ secret weapon. If the other countries learned about the atomic bomb, they might try to invest in a similar weapon. This was proven when the Russians also began creating atomic bombs.
I believe that using the bomb against Nagasaki was not required. The war was already coming to an end, and there was no need for further destruction.
Yes i agree completely. Learning about this from both sides really got me thinking was this really ok. Sadly i admit that the bombing of Hiroshima was justified but not by much thou. The second bomb on Nagasaki i have to say was completely unnecessary.
I agree that the bombing of Hiroshima wasn't justified, however in a way, the attack saved Japanese lives too. As we know, the Japanese listened to their emperor keenly, and were ready to fight for their lives. If America would have gone in with infantry, then the American losses would be obviously higher. The Japanese losses would be higher because the citizens of other cities would also fight instead of the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
1.No,President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb was not justified. He had not taken full part in the experiment of making the atomic bomb, and only found out about it after the previous president had died. The atomic bomb was nothing like the bomb that was dropped on Pearl Harbor. President Truman wouldn't know really get to know how much pain and grief the atomic bomb would inflict onto the Japanese civilians, because he did not experience it himself. Truman attacked at Hiroshima, a city where the civilians were defenseless. There were no weapons for the men and women to defend themselves with.
2. No, the bombing at Nagasaki was not necessary. Japan's economy became even more devastated and Japan was already willing to give up. US bombed Nagasaki just to get even more revenge at Japan and wanted to prove to the world that they were the best, and not to mess with them. US could have thought of better ways that would not kill mere civilians and make Japan surrender. US should have had more sympathy towards the Japanese civilians.
1. I believe that Truman's choice to drop the bomb was justified because it was necessary to show the Japanese who the dominant power was. It was also justified because it ended the war instead of dragging it and possibly losing even more lives. However, an aspect to consider was the city of Hiroshima itself. It was an innocent and non-military affiliated city. With this bomb, Truman ended several lives, which was not necessary. If Truman had dropped the bomb on another, less populous city, there would have been less casualties. Even though it was a civilian casualty, if the bomb hadn't been dropped, the death toll could have been much higher.
2. Truman wanted to drop the bomb on Nagasaki because he wanted the Japanese to surrender and end the war, however, the bombing wasn't justified. I believe that it wasn't justified because it was evident that the Japanese had no forces to fight with and once again, Nagasaki was an innocent and civilian town. It could be put that Truman just wanted revenge to satisfy his hatred against the Japanese. Hiroshima could have been understandable, but the bomb on Nagasaki was a blow in America's reputation. They viewed us as ruthless murders, and as a matter of fact, many people even today agree with that statement. The previous bomb was enough devastation and Japan was ready to let down, but because of the rash decisions of Truman, there were unnecessary casualties.
I completely agree with your reasoning, Nisan because the US successfully made a statement to the Japanese of who was powerful in the war and Nagasaki was an overkill to that statement.
1. Truman's choice to drop the bomb was justified since it led to a much quicker end to the war and a proper demonstration of what the bomb can do. With the war ending, many lives and environment have been saved for the cost of the Japanese lives. The same Japanese, who the U.S. declared war on for bombing Pearl Harbor. The use of the bomb was an experiment and the success of it allowed America to stand out as one of the stronger countries. However, the death of Japanese civilian was unnecessary and a military-zone city would have been a better choice.
2. The second bomb was that Truman dropped on Nagasaki was way too rushed and the bombing wasn't really justified.
After the first bomb, the Japanese were under major reconstruction and provision for the injured was immense. The Japanese government were probably not thinking about continuing to hurt themselves and so a simple threat of dropping the second bomb could have forced a surrender. The first bomb has already done its job, but the second bomb was simply overdoing it.
1. I think it was justified for President Harry Truman to drop the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima because it ended the war earlier. By ending the war earlier, it saved many lives on both sides.
2. I think that President Harry Truman wanted to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki because he wanted an unconditional surrender of Japan. However, I do not believe that this was justified because many lives could've been saved if we didn't drop the second bomb.
Only users who are logged in may leave comments on this blog. Please follow the link below in order to log in.
Click here to log in