I'll be in a debate and saying why the bomb dropped on Hiroshima during Pearl Harbour was good how do i do it

Question

The people I'm debating with I've talked too outside of class and they always say the same thing the bomb caused lots of innocent people too die . I say more people would have died if the war kept on going. But I dont really know how too prove my point. The debate is this afternoon so please help me.

Answer 1

It was good for "MOST" of the Allies... ( United States, Great Britain, France, Australia, etc..) Bad for the Japanese...... and one of our Allies... " The Soviet Union". The Soviets were planning to seize the opportunity to gain more land by becoming more involved with the war against Japan. If the war had dragged on using conventional weapons of war, the death toll would have been greater to "ALL" armies involved...... and civilians (innocent people?) too. The Soviet Union would have had control of part of Japan and there would most likely have been another "Iron Curtain" erected across Japan and parts of China and maybe Korea.

More Japanese would have been killed by conventional war than with the atom bombs being dropped. Take Dresden Germany as an example........ More Germans were killed in that City by conventional bombs being dropped on them than in Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

The closer that the fighting came to the mainland of Japan, the heavier the loss of life became. In the end the atom bomb was such a frightful device that it shortened the war and "SAVED" lives.

Answer 2

I believe the use of the atom bombs were "good" for two main reasons. First, I think if we would have invaded, the causualties would have been higher. There is some evidence that Japan was getting ready to surrender. At the time we could not have known that, and even now we don't know how it would have played out. Once we invaded we probably would have used the bomb anyway.

You might find some points to back you up if you research the last few island invasions of the war. Civillian deaths were bad. You also might bring up points about the conventional destruction of cities like Dresden in Germany.

My second argument is more theoretical. If we had not nuked Japan, would someone have used them during the cold war? Those horrible pictures and stories from Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to make people want to avoid there use at least just a little. It inspired peace advocates and turned whole nations away from nuclear research. It's a big what if, but it is a valid point.

That said, there were a few not so "good" reasons to use the bomb. Simple revenge for Pearl Harbor. It sent a message that if you mess with this giant we will hurt you. Military prudence. If you have a weapon use it. WW II was not a police action. We were not winning hearts and minds. You have to be careful in wars like we've seen recently, but WW II was a battle for survival. Hurray for cluster bombs, nukes, and land mines. I hope if we're ever in a war like that again, we don't think twice over destroying our enemy.

If we could just figure out how to win these new police action wars.

Answer 3

Uh, I probably won't be the only person to point this out to you but we didn't drop the bomb on Hiroshima DURING Pearl Harbor -- it was about four YEARS afterward. You might want to go back reread your history book before the debate.

That said, one way to prove (or at least support) your point would be to look at how many people were dying annually during World War II because of the war and project that forward. Then compare that figure with how many fewer people died after we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Be sure to take into account that the United States was planning an all-out invasion of the Japanese mainland -- a prolonged campaign/occupation that would have surely dragged on for years and caused many, many thousands more deaths.

Let me know who wins (your debate, that is).

Answer 4

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.
The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself.

Answer 5

Yes
It was good. my dear friend i m fully agree with ur view i e bomb was responsible for the destruction of a lot of lifes not only on that time but till now effects are there. i m really very much with this view but can u say coin has only one side never every coin has two side we all are just always discussing only abt the one side not the other.

I am going to present a coatation" nothing permanent exept national interest".

I think all of you may understand this cotation. If we keep ourselve in the fram of situation of A merica we may find it was not wrong. since till before the paear Harbour America kept himself neutral from the war although he was morally supporting England because mostly powerful Americans were belonging from the british community so they were morally giving support but not directly involve in war and when any country who attack on neutral country that time attacked country can take any step and us has taken

the most important thing is that time japan was a big power and there was no any means to destroy the janpan exept the atom bomb.

it is also fact since that time japan did not have atom bomb other wise he could use it in that war.

now come to the present scenereo we may find each and every country against the nuclear bomb but more or less every country try to hold it why?

actually i want to tell u waht is the basic thing it was bomb no usa
since usa holding that bomb so he use next time may be other country will use so if every country is saying it was a wrong action of usa why not all these country try to stop nuclear programme.

the last but the most important thing afeter droping the bomb world warII was ended and safe the life of millions of people and it also controll the japan other wise might be japan will be the dictator of Asia.

So mydear friend i am fully agree with all of you on humanintarian gground it was really worse not only worse but it was the sin of usa but on the ground of national interest, long lasting worldwar and safty of Asia it was a good step. i am not saying it was the best among all the steps but it was a good step.

Answer 6

I don't think it was good, but, for the sake of your debate, you might say until then, people didn't realize how horrible the effect of nuclear bomb would be. People suffered the effect year after year (cancers) and the environmental damage was horrific, too. You may say this is one of the reasons why countries work hard to put restrictions on each other for the use of nuclear bombs. It's a lesson learned. If it were to happen let's say 50 years later, the bomb would be more sophisticated and the damage more severe.

Answer 7

One thing you may want to illustrate right of the start is the fact that right now you could have been in the debate speaking Japanese.
Japan plan on taking over the world, kind of like Saddam wanted to do. Hitler also tried, but we did not have the bomb ready for him or else.
All the people who died with the bomb where the ones supplying kamikaze pilots and soldiers for their army. So they were not so Innocent after all. If they were so Innocent they should not have linked to the military.

Answer 8

The effects of nuclear radiation on the populous of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sickened and killed many more, however their was a mighty build up of Japanese and American troops which were preparing for a massive assault on the Japanese mainland. The Japanese forces on the homeland numbered approximately 2 million, and because of the near curtailment of their navy would have been helpless in a frontal assault. The U.S. no doubt would have mustered an even more formidable force, yet the upshot would be that in a man to man struggle the losses would have been nearly evenly divided. Literally hundreds of thousands of lives, even a million lives would have been lost. See the link for more info.

Answer 9

nicely, first of all, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did no longer take place "for the period of" Pearl Harbor. They occured for the period of WW2, of which the attack on Pearl Harbor grew to become right into a important ingredient in our determination to pass to conflict. yet you're maximum appropriate with regard to the style of folk who would have been killed if we hadn't dropped the bombs. It grew to become into clean that the eastern weren't going to offer up. That meant we've been going to would desire to invade the fatherland of Japan, which given the fanaticism of the eastern human beings on the time, would probable have meant hundreds of hundreds of our infantrymen would die and particular a million or extra eastern. it is exciting to word that extra eastern died from our fire-bombing of eastern cities than died in the two A-bombs we dropped on them. and finally, there's no denying the reality that the bombs led to the eastern to offer up unconditionally.

Answer 10

Yes, George Bush is not doing anything right now,Bombs Awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay