against dropping of atomic bomb debate?

Question

I'm against the dropping and i need to answer some questions that the opposite team is going to ask me (i need reasons to back up the answers):
1) The Jap. had a secret bomb project. is there any doubt they would have use it if they had succeeded?
2) Didn't the dropping save lives in the long run?
3) in war, the objective is to defeat the enemy and keep your own men alive. the point of war is to win , not to make friends. Why should we care about killing other people?
4) The bombings ended the war.
5) if we invaded the islands of japan, more japs. would have died and americans too.

*thanks to everyone who answered this. it might be a little hard but i apprieciate it.

Answer 1

1) The japanese actually had a different project: they were trying to make microwave beam weapons (they figured that was a safer bet than the bomb). Unfortunately for them, they just didn't have the technology at the time. They may have come up with the bomb eventually, but who knows what would have happened in retrospect? It's impossible to say.

2) Not really. Around the same number of lives would probably have been lost either way; the only question on casualties was, "japanese civilians, or american soldiers?"

3) Because AFTER the war you still have to deal with other people. The proper goal of war isn't just to win: it's to prevent further wars from happening. Luckily, the japanese culture changed smoothly and successfully after the war, and everything turned out alright. That doesn't always happen,a nd cannot be relied on.

4) Yes, yes they did. Although, that is a point of some dispute; the japanese response to our initial warning about the bomb was translated as "We are aware of your offer", in reference to our offer for their surrender. Thus, the government figured they turned us down, and we nuked them. However, the japanese word for "We are aware" may also have been translated as "we are considering", so some are asking the question: did we translate it wrong? And would the japanese actually have agreed to surrender? No one really knows.
Plus, at that point the japanese military was pretty destroyed. All that remained was invading the mainland. I'm inclined to agree that it was necessary to conquer the mainland one way or another - that way, the war would definitely be over, for good. Like i said: prevent further wars.

5)I don't know about more japs dying, but more americans certainly would have died. That's pretty much a certain thing.

Answer 2

Warning: Based on admittedly limited information:

1) I have no idea whether they actually had a bomb program, much less how advanced it was. There is no doubt the Japanese would have used a nuke if they had one available. They would have been fools not to employ any military advantage.

2) Yes. But it was not known for certain at the time that Japan would actually surrender; plans for an invasion of the islands were in process. The Allies had a limited supply of A-bombs, and Japan could had survived all of them if truly determined.

3) Even war has to be 'civilized' because at some point the survivors will have to co-exist. (Unless you're bent on genocide.) The goal is to force your will upon the opponent, which makes no sense if he no longer exists. This is especially true if the conflict has an economic basis, which most do; if you make yourself hated enough, they won't trade with you after the war.

4) This is arguable; many elements of the Japanese military were more than willing to prolong the conflict, and some actually sought to defy the Emperor's order to surrender. That the Japanese surrendered when they did is to some extent a matter of luck rather than an inevitable result.

5) This is essentially a restatement of #2.

Answer 3

1) Like another said, the project was nowhere near fruition. Plus, the Japanese navy and aircraft fleets were severely disabled at that point. Even with a bomb, there were very few targets they could have hit, and none of substantial population.

2). Ultimately, I'd have to say yes. Remember that we fire-bombed the daylights out of Tokyo and other cities in Japan. As many as 90,000 people died in the first wave of "conventonal weapon" attacks. Even after all that, Japan showed no sign of giving up, although they were clearly losing the war on every front. We could have kept up with the traditional methods, lost more soldiers, and Japan would have eventually surrendered. However, they still would have lost just as many civilians either way.

*90,000 is almost half the number that died in both atomic bomb drops (the number is over 200,000, which includes those that died from the aftermath radiation).


4) The bombings forced the surrender by the military elite that was defiant before the bombs fell. Remember, Japan's politicians were negotiating a possible surrender for almost an entire year before the atomic bombs were dropped. The civilian leadership, though hoping for a surrender, was powerless over the Imperial Army and Emperor Hirohito.

5) Yes, that's true. Only at the time the bombs were dropped was that a reality. If we had decided not to drop the bombs and go with a costly invasion, it probably wouldn't have been as bad as originally thought, because the Russians who declared war on Japan just a few months earlier, were making rapid progress.


I think it was a really difficult decision, and there's no concrete answer that will defend or oppose the idea. There were benefits on both sides of the issue, which is why it's still a topic of debate today. I would hesitate and really think the issue over before you fully commit yourself to one side of the issue. The guy two posts above should research the "NANKING MASSACRE" just to get a glimpse of the wartime attrocities committed by Japan. By getting the war over with quicker, we were able to liberate over a million prisoners of war from many Japanese concentration camps months or possibly years ahead of time saving tens of thousands of lives there alone.

Answer 4

1.) The Japanese program never got anywhere close to developing a usable warhead.
2.)Dropping the bomb did not save lives it took a lot of innocent lives as the Japanese army was already defeated when the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place. That is why there was no counterattack from Japan.
3.)Our concern isnt about killing enemy combatants. It is true that the point is to kill them most times, but you can also take them as enemy prisoners and manage to assimilate them into your culture or even negotiate thier return to thier homeland. The problem though is the people that suffered for the Nuclear attack on Japan were mostly civillians.
4.)The war was over before the attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki look it up.
5.)At that point an invasion wouldnt have had the casualties originally thought. Intelligence on Japan in those days was most chiefly a guess. An educated guess but still a guess.

Answer 5

1) The Germans had a bomb project, but the Japanese never made any credible attempt to build a bomb.

2) It saved American lives, yes. Japanese lives? Maybe--the Japanese had shown a willingness to fight to the death, so the casualties from a land battle would have been huge on Japan's side as well.

5) Hiroshima was necessary. Nagasaki was probably done too quickly, before the Japanese really had a chance to assess the impact of the first bomb, and decide what to do.

Also, remember that FDR guided the project, but then died suddenly before the end of the war, throwing the decision into Truman's lap. He had not been following the project, and was a much weaker man than FDR.

Answer 6

OK..so are you against dropping or not...cause it really doesn't matter either way, it happened and that was like 60 years ago. But to answer your questions anyway.

1) Yes they did, and so did the Germans, had either one of them beat the US on the nuke race, either one of them would have used it, and probably with more casualties.

2) Yes it did, most of the people killed in the Japanese bombings were military combatants, and the Japs had several thousands of more troops ready, willing, and waiting to fight. As for civilians, many more were saved, and more importantly many more American lives were spared due to the US dropping the bomb, not only in the Japanese venue, but also on the European front. As soon as the US displayed its ability, the World exited the War.

3) Exactly, good point.

4) see answer 2

5) again, see answer 2

Answer 7

As to point #2, based on casualties from previous invasions it was estimated that an invasion of the Japaneses homeland would have cost us one million lives.

On point #3 be careful how you word that, but we caused the deaths of more people with the fire raids in Tokyo then with the 2 atomic bombs. You will need to research that.

Point 5 goes back to point 2.

I don't know of any secret bomb project by Japan, but they did have one as it turn out. Nazi Germany did have an attempt going on developing the weapon, but it never came close to production.

Answer 8

I hope that some of this helps

(1)
The “Army” program started around the same time as the U.S. Manhattan Project. Most experts believe that the program was small, and managed neither to refine enough uranium-235 nor to breed enough plutonium needed to make a workable device.

The program of the “Navy” initially aimed only to harness nuclear energy as an energy source to reduce the dependence on oil and to relieve the permanent shortage thereof, as it was thought that a weapon would not be able to be developed for wartime use.



(2)
It is estimated that by December 1945, as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects. In Nagasaki, roughly 74,000 people died of the bomb and its aftereffects with the death toll from two bombings around 214,000 people. In both cities, most of the casualties were civilians.

According to recent estimates, about 20,000 Koreans were killed in Hiroshima and about 2,000 died in Nagasaki.

Before the bombs were dropped the surrender was in progress in Tokyo.


(3)
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder. ~Percy Bysshe Shelley, "A Declaration of Rights"


(4)
Before the bombs were dropped the surrender was in progress in Tokyo. Dropping the bombs was a test of the new technology and to ‘scare’ the Soviets. Note that “2 different types” of bomb were tested in Japan to see the effect on a human population

Answer 9

It is my honest opinion I would not be here today or could not be here today if the bomb had not been dropped. My father was waiting on a landing craft support ship that had been training for the invasion of Japan. Dropping those two bombs eliminated that need and probably saved us thousands of American lives (my dad included) and probably thousands of Japanese civilians lives too.

Answer 10

1. If they had the chance, yes, they would have used it
2. Saved lots of American lives, yes... What is most important during war?
3. see answer 2..
4. Yes it did.. they had nothing left to fight with..
5. more Americans would have died.. Almost like Normandy Invasion.

Nice to have a lot of hindsight.. We had no idea what they would do other then kill themselves to win..