The debate over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb in japan

Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the atomic bombs on enemy targets believe massive casualties on both sides would have occurred in Operation Downfallthe planned Allied invasion of Japan.

Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U. Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger. It was the U. The entire population of Japan is a proper military target The bombs did, however, bring an end to the most destructive war in history.

If the war had gone longer, without the use of the atomic bomb, how many thousands and thousands of helpless men, women and children would have needlessly died and suffered?

Debate: Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki

This is the world we cover. This is absolute rubbish, the US homefront was relatively unscathed and industry was booming with exports and war manufacturing. Lee witnessed his home city being invaded by the Japanese and was nearly executed in the Sook Ching Massacre.

You did the right thing. The ethical debate over the decision to drop the atomic bomb will never be resolved. It would be a strategic catastrophe for the U. Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary It was their system of dispersal of industry.

51g. The Decision to Drop the Bomb

But Japan had an army of 2 million strong stationed in the home islands guarding against invasion. Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. On Iwo Jima alone there were almost 50, combined casualties, and while it was soverign territory, the home islands of Japan would prove a different battle.

Elsewhere, historians believed that a continued naval blockade along with conventional bombing would have eventually brought Japan to her knees, however, the US nor the allies for that matter had any intention of allowing a war that had raged for six years to rumble on any further when the means to end it swiftly were readily available.

The answer can be discerned in the U. Strategic Bombing Survey reported, "Certainly prior to 31 Decemberand in all probability prior to 1 NovemberJapan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.

The decision to drop the bomb has been laundered through the American myth-making machine into everything from self-preservation by the Americans to concern for the Japanese themselves-as if incinerating two hundred thousand human beings in a second was somehow an act of moral largesse.

And World War II was won not by the American laissez faire system, but by the top-down, command and control over the economy that the Russian system epitomized. Stimson stated, "The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a psychological weapon.One of the greatest controversies to come out of World War II was whether the atomic bomb was necessary to bring about its end.

historians have engaged in an often vitriolic debate over the decision to use the atomic bombs. Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan.

Hear the stories of the Manhattan Project. Browse our collection. Using the atomic bomb on Japan was the fastest way to produce a victory with the lowest cost in American lives.

Home Civic Opinion Debate Club Should Truman Have Used the Atomic Bomb? Pros and Cons of Dropping the Atomic Bomb 8TH SOCIAL STUDIES DEBATE ON THE PROS AND CONS OF DROPPING THE ATOMIC BOMB ON JAPAN Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II.

Here is a summary of arguments on both sides. Should Truman Have Used the Atomic Bomb? of the bombing and reigniting debate about whether President Harry Truman was not necessary and find that Japan would have surrendered even if the.

State your opinion on whether you feel that the US should have dropped the atomic bomb and the effects it had on the world. Yes, it was terrible that so many people died, but in the end, it was what the U.S.

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Thought was necessary. Japan still didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped, only after the second one was dropped, the.

Access Denied

Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. Here is a summary of arguments on both sides: Why the bomb was needed or justified.

Download
The debate over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb in japan
Rated 0/5 based on 60 review