An argument in favor of dropping the atomic bomb on hiroshima

In Total War, the line between combatants and non-combatants were often blurred. My opponent quotes that, "The cabinet meeting over the night of August was deadlocked with six in favor of surrender under certain conditions, three to fight on until after the final battle had shown Japan's will, and with five neutral members.

I believe that the bombings were necessary for an American victory and the alternative would have been worse in the end. The Germans launched its first series of saturation raids on British cities after losing the Battle of Britain to the RAF in summer of However, Japanese diplomatic messages regarding a possible Soviet mediation—intercepted through Magicand made available to Allied leaders—have been interpreted by some historians to mean, "the dominant militarists insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled.

Mini-subs, each with 2 torpedoes, were building. I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives.

More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

From Coventry, London, Belfast, Bristol, and other British cities, more than 40, civilians lost their lives in those attacks. Not only did it ruin more innocent lives, it was just done for a demonstration of power, which everyone knew the U.

At the end of the war, only 52, were repatriated to Java. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? 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.

With Japan still refusing to surrender, the Potsdam threat was fulfilled. From the point of view of President Truman the Japanese were conflicted but still ready to fight. Support[ edit ] Would prevent many U.

I look towards debating this topic and I wish you the best of luck. There was no guarantee that the operation would have been successful if attempted. Downfall was an American plan to invade and occupy Japan. Operation Downfall, the alternative to trying to end the war, would not have been executed until three months later.

Was the US Army justified in its belief to invade Japan? Shinyo - suicide motorboats. Preferable to an invasion. To date, all American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Warshave not exceeded that number.

Shinyo - suicide motorboats. Tokyo, recognizing imminent defeat, had secretly sent peace feelers to Moscow, which had not yet entered the Far Eastern war. Had to be done. Thus, proving the second bombing was completely unnecessary.

The Japanese ultimately decided not to surrender and chose to keep fighting; they were not contemplating. The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa.

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The "low" projections showed America alone losingsoldiers in Operation Olympic [ http: After the first bomb hit, Japan was ready to end war. The plans, planned ahead to January ofsix months later than the war actually lasted August, The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was thus perpetuated for the wrong reasons according to the Revisionists.

(Ferrell, ) However, as has been highlighted, the atomic bombs were initially constructed to counter a possible growing German/Nazi threat. Argument #1: The Bomb Saved American Lives.

Dropping the Atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki was wrong.

The main argument in support of the decision to use the atomic bomb is that it saved American lives which would otherwise have been lost in two D-Day-style land invasions of the main islands of the Japanese homeland. Every summer, as the anniversaries of the U.S.

nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki approach, Americans engage in the painful moral exercise of wondering whether President Harry Truman should. The debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the ethical, legal, and military controversies surrounding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August at the close of World War II (–45).

The debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the ethical, legal, and military controversies surrounding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August at the close of World War II (–45). - The Atomic Bomb Controversy August 6, the atomic bomb was first used in combat as it was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.

The raw explosive power of the weapon was displayed. Within a few days, another bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.

Download
An argument in favor of dropping the atomic bomb on hiroshima
Rated 0/5 based on 72 review