I do believe that it was necessary to drop an Atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. If the United States would not have dropped an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States would have been at war with Japan for a lot longer. We would have also lost a lot more men which would have meant more fatherless children and widowless mothers. Japan having the belief that surrendering to your enemy was unjust would have never surrendered. This is why the Atomic bomb was very necessary to end the war, because once we dropped two of the bombs on Japan they realized that they would lose their whole country if they did not surrender to the United States.
I agree that we would have lost more men due to the fact that Japan was completely against surrender. The Death March is one example of how they view surrender; they beat, abused, humiliated, and dehumanized in any way possible the men who surrendered in the Philippines. The Atomic Bomb was necessary to end the war and save the country.
I agree, the US had to force Japan to surrender, and the only way it seemed was to bomb them. I don't like the idea of dropping a bomb we don't know the true effects of, but it did its job in the end.
I agree that the Atomic bombs most definitely brought a much hastier end to WWII than traditional war tactics would have. While there are many negative consequences that arose from the dropping of the bombs, none of these were foreseen by American officials. Scientists had not yet discovered the long-lasting impact of radiation, and could not have fathomed the arms race that was created by the development of weapons of mass destruction. With the information that was at hand at the time, it seemed very necessary to drop the bombs and end WWII.
I think dropping the bomb on Japan was necessary to end the war. This is because the Japanese weren’t going to stop fighting before the bombs were dropped. The Japanese didn’t even stop fighting after the first bomb was dropped. The Americans then had to drop the second bomb to make the Japanese stop fighting. If the Japanese didn’t stop fighting after the first one was dropped, why would they stop if none was dropped? This is a classic case of killing millions to save billions. I believe the bombs were necessary to stop the Second World War.
Although dropping the atomic bomb did save countless American lives, the war could have ended completely differently. One of the main reasons Japan didn't surrender in the first place was because they thought their emperor would lose his throne. The US let him keep his throne after their surrender, so it was kind of pointless, in a sense, to continue to drop the bombs on Japan and kill thousands of civilians even if we were going to let them keep their emperor anyway.
Imagine this, you are in your room, lying on a cot, when suddenly you hear gunshots, explosions, and chaos. You run outside to find your friends scattered around, dead; And the last image you have ,besides that of their mutilated bodies, is a Japanese airplane, unharmed, flying off into the sunrise. How would you feel? Would you feel that it is "Morally wrong" to drop a bomb on the nation of these people to help prevent further American deaths? I believe that it was completely justified, and necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan. Without detonating these bombs, the war would have lasted much longer, and resulted in thousands of American servicemen's lives lost, and thousands of Japanese civilians lives lost as well. It was easier, more effective, and most importantly, life saving, to drop these bombs. Although many will argue about the morality of the president when he decided to drop the atomic bomb, that is not what matters; what matters is that, even if he did intend the drop to intimidate , it also did its job of ending the war.
I do think it could be considered morally wrong, and many Japanse civilians were killed by both the bombs and the fire raids. The Japanese were practically forced to fight, I do not blame them for attacking us.
You're points are valid. I don't think looking for the "easier, more effective" way is the right way to look at the killing of innocent people. The option to drop the atomic bomb seemed to be the only option at the time and I'm sure it seemed the best way to go, but to kill innocents is never a 'good decision.' No matter the background situation.Necessary? Maybe. Correct, good, right? Definitely not.
Bombing Japan was necessary in order to end the war and save US lives. The Japanese was not going to surrender, the US let them know we had a bomb but still would not surrender. It is against their culture to surrender because it is deemed very dishonorable. If we did not drop the bombs, then the US would have had to sacrifice many more lives and spend even more money. I am not sure if it morally right however, nobody deserves to be killed as innocents. The bomb is only ok to use if it the last resort.
Dropping the Atomic Bomb was both justified and unjustified. It was a necessary action for the US in the sense that it saved thousands of American soldiers' lives by ending the war. The majority of Americans at this time also felt it was justified because of what happened at Pearl Harbor. It was also unjustified in the sense that countless innocent, Japanese lives could have been saved. The US demanded them to surrender unconditionally before the dropping of the bomb. Unconditional means without conditions (obviously). One of the main reasons Japan refused to surrender was because they wanted their emperor to remain in power. If the US would have told them that before dropping the bomb, they might have surrendered. It was pointless because the US allowed Japan to keep their emperor on his throne after their surrender. That is not an unconditional surrender.
Honestly people can argue either way, about whether or not it was necessary to Drop the Atomic Bomb to End World War II. However, I think that it was necessary. There was no way to tell if the intelligence about the Japanese being about ready to surrender was true, and their belief was that there should be no surrendering, fight till one man stands. So, in order to get an unconditional surrender of everyone including the leader, does the leader not also have to step down from power? Either way, by having the people of Japan ready to give up the leader and surrender unconditionally with no way of knowing what was to come. This gives a far more powerful message than just saying that they would stop fighting. Being ready to give up the leader of their country, then being able to keep him after all is a relief. Thus, because the Japanese thought that it was dishonorable to surrender, there was no way to be sure that they would have before the dropping of the Atomic Bomb.
I don't think it was necessary, but it was an escape from fighting any further. I think that the U.S. dropped the Atomic Bomb to "end" the war to assert power. The nation had what Japan did not, make them an easy target. If it were going to be peaceful, it would have ended later. The United States was suffering from the war at home, and needed to move the soldiers back. The Atomic Bomb was not necessary. It was an arrogant move on us. Yes, Japan had posed a threat, but how many actual soldiers were actually in the country when we bombed it? To say it as necessary is simply ignorant. To an extent I suppose it was, but the people who suffered or died were innocent people we sent back. The war didn't really end after that either.
Start with 2400 soldiers and civilians at pearlr go to 10000 soldiers American in Filipinos murdered ruthlessly on the Bataan death March bayoneted beaten to death in shot then go to the millions of Filipinos murdered by the Japanese after that we can go to the 10 million or so Chinese the Japanese murdered bayoneted and a used biological warfare on in they injuria finally there's the 32000 POW as in Japan that were ordered to be murdered the moment we set foot on their soil and in the Philippines some of them even get a Head Start by heard in American soldiers into a pit in burning them alive finally there were a 123000 in tourney's at various Japanese camps men women and children that were ordered to be slaughtered the moment we invaded how not to drop the bomb considered it would have cost us another 2 to 300000 maybe even half and the and men to subdue the Dan Japanese in some damphool says we should na drop the bomb,at no point did the japs even consider civilians
I do believe that it was necessary to drop an Atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. If the United States would not have dropped an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States would have been at war with Japan for a lot longer. We would have also lost a lot more men which would have meant more fatherless children and widowless mothers. Japan having the belief that surrendering to your enemy was unjust would have never surrendered. This is why the Atomic bomb was very necessary to end the war, because once we dropped two of the bombs on Japan they realized that they would lose their whole country if they did not surrender to the United States.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we would have lost more men due to the fact that Japan was completely against surrender. The Death March is one example of how they view surrender; they beat, abused, humiliated, and dehumanized in any way possible the men who surrendered in the Philippines. The Atomic Bomb was necessary to end the war and save the country.
DeleteI agree, the US had to force Japan to surrender, and the only way it seemed was to bomb them. I don't like the idea of dropping a bomb we don't know the true effects of, but it did its job in the end.
DeleteI agree that the Atomic bombs most definitely brought a much hastier end to WWII than traditional war tactics would have. While there are many negative consequences that arose from the dropping of the bombs, none of these were foreseen by American officials. Scientists had not yet discovered the long-lasting impact of radiation, and could not have fathomed the arms race that was created by the development of weapons of mass destruction. With the information that was at hand at the time, it seemed very necessary to drop the bombs and end WWII.
DeleteI think dropping the bomb on Japan was necessary to end the war. This is because the Japanese weren’t going to stop fighting before the bombs were dropped. The Japanese didn’t even stop fighting after the first bomb was dropped. The Americans then had to drop the second bomb to make the Japanese stop fighting. If the Japanese didn’t stop fighting after the first one was dropped, why would they stop if none was dropped? This is a classic case of killing millions to save billions. I believe the bombs were necessary to stop the Second World War.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you stated. Dropping the bombs seemed necessary.
DeleteAlthough dropping the atomic bomb did save countless American lives, the war could have ended completely differently. One of the main reasons Japan didn't surrender in the first place was because they thought their emperor would lose his throne. The US let him keep his throne after their surrender, so it was kind of pointless, in a sense, to continue to drop the bombs on Japan and kill thousands of civilians even if we were going to let them keep their emperor anyway.
DeleteImagine this, you are in your room, lying on a cot, when suddenly you hear gunshots, explosions, and chaos. You run outside to find your friends scattered around, dead; And the last image you have ,besides that of their mutilated bodies, is a Japanese airplane, unharmed, flying off into the sunrise. How would you feel? Would you feel that it is "Morally wrong" to drop a bomb on the nation of these people to help prevent further American deaths? I believe that it was completely justified, and necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan. Without detonating these bombs, the war would have lasted much longer, and resulted in thousands of American servicemen's lives lost, and thousands of Japanese civilians lives lost as well. It was easier, more effective, and most importantly, life saving, to drop these bombs. Although many will argue about the morality of the president when he decided to drop the atomic bomb, that is not what matters; what matters is that, even if he did intend the drop to intimidate , it also did its job of ending the war.
ReplyDeleteI do think it could be considered morally wrong, and many Japanse civilians were killed by both the bombs and the fire raids. The Japanese were practically forced to fight, I do not blame them for attacking us.
DeleteYou're points are valid. I don't think looking for the "easier, more effective" way is the right way to look at the killing of innocent people. The option to drop the atomic bomb seemed to be the only option at the time and I'm sure it seemed the best way to go, but to kill innocents is never a 'good decision.' No matter the background situation.Necessary? Maybe. Correct, good, right? Definitely not.
DeleteBombing Japan was necessary in order to end the war and save US lives. The Japanese was not going to surrender, the US let them know we had a bomb but still would not surrender. It is against their culture to surrender because it is deemed very dishonorable. If we did not drop the bombs, then the US would have had to sacrifice many more lives and spend even more money. I am not sure if it morally right however, nobody deserves to be killed as innocents. The bomb is only ok to use if it the last resort.
ReplyDeleteDropping the Atomic Bomb was both justified and unjustified. It was a necessary action for the US in the sense that it saved thousands of American soldiers' lives by ending the war. The majority of Americans at this time also felt it was justified because of what happened at Pearl Harbor. It was also unjustified in the sense that countless innocent, Japanese lives could have been saved. The US demanded them to surrender unconditionally before the dropping of the bomb. Unconditional means without conditions (obviously). One of the main reasons Japan refused to surrender was because they wanted their emperor to remain in power. If the US would have told them that before dropping the bomb, they might have surrendered. It was pointless because the US allowed Japan to keep their emperor on his throne after their surrender. That is not an unconditional surrender.
ReplyDeleteHonestly people can argue either way, about whether or not it was necessary to Drop the Atomic Bomb to End World War II. However, I think that it was necessary. There was no way to tell if the intelligence about the Japanese being about ready to surrender was true, and their belief was that there should be no surrendering, fight till one man stands. So, in order to get an unconditional surrender of everyone including the leader, does the leader not also have to step down from power? Either way, by having the people of Japan ready to give up the leader and surrender unconditionally with no way of knowing what was to come. This gives a far more powerful message than just saying that they would stop fighting. Being ready to give up the leader of their country, then being able to keep him after all is a relief. Thus, because the Japanese thought that it was dishonorable to surrender, there was no way to be sure that they would have before the dropping of the Atomic Bomb.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was necessary, but it was an escape from fighting any further. I think that the U.S. dropped the Atomic Bomb to "end" the war to assert power. The nation had what Japan did not, make them an easy target. If it were going to be peaceful, it would have ended later. The United States was suffering from the war at home, and needed to move the soldiers back. The Atomic Bomb was not necessary. It was an arrogant move on us. Yes, Japan had posed a threat, but how many actual
ReplyDeletesoldiers were actually in the country when we bombed it? To say it as necessary is simply ignorant. To an extent I suppose it was, but the people who suffered or died were innocent people we sent back. The war didn't really end after that either.
Start with 2400 soldiers and civilians at pearlr go to 10000 soldiers American in Filipinos murdered ruthlessly on the Bataan death March bayoneted beaten to death in shot then go to the millions of Filipinos murdered by the Japanese after that we can go to the 10 million or so Chinese the Japanese murdered bayoneted and a used biological warfare on in they injuria finally there's the 32000 POW as in Japan that were ordered to be murdered the moment we set foot on their soil and in the Philippines some of them even get a Head Start by heard in American soldiers into a pit in burning them alive finally there were a 123000 in tourney's at various Japanese camps men women and children that were ordered to be slaughtered the moment we invaded how not to drop the bomb considered it would have cost us another 2 to 300000 maybe even half and the and men to subdue the Dan Japanese in some damphool says we should na drop the bomb,at no point did the japs even consider civilians
ReplyDelete