To drop the bomb or not? (WWII)?

Question

we are going to have a debate in my history class on wednesday... i'm on to-not-drop-the-bomb side.. could you guys help me gather some leads..???

i'm not against it... actually i was a pro-drop-the-bomb... it's just that i was assigned to be on to-not-drop-the-bomb side...

Answer 1

If the US did not use the bomb, it would have cost millions of dollars and a great use of man power to take over Japan. But, the use of the bomb led the USSR and the USA into the cold war and a global arms race!

Answer 2

I am thinking you are going to have a good time with this. Most scholars agree the decision to drop the bomb(s), was a necessary evil in order to conclude a war that had already cost far too many lives.

You may want to approach your side of the debate from the approach taken by the World Court; that being the legality of bombing civilian targets with no warning.

The link below gives you food for thought on this never ending debate.

Answer 3

more Japanese lives were lost to fire bombing then the a-bombs. and many more lives would of been lost if we would of invaded. into the millions on both sides. that's correct about it starting the cold war, but you could of looked at it this way after the fall of the Nazi's we(what i mean by we is the USA, and allies) were grabbing up all their scientist's and eventually the atomic age would of come about anyway. it just happens that we got there first. japan and Germany were also working on the a-bomb and don't think for one second they would of hesitated in using it. the real question we have to ask our selves is are we at the turning point of man kind. can mankind learn from their mistakes and move on into the future. or do we follow the same old path and annihilate each other.

Answer 4

We did this in my World History class. I was on con.
First let's start off that Americans were already treating Japanese Americans like crap. (Don't call us JAPS OK? That is so freaking rude.) They put them in internment camps, as if doubting loyalty! Some men went to go fight in the war! True, it was after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. But, I mean, we weren't putting Germans in the camps either!
The Bomb that dropped on Pearl Harbor, was not in fact, an Atomic or Hydrogen Bomb. It was various torpedo's, weapons and such.
When the Two Bombs were dropped, sub particles were released in the air that hung around for weeks. So not only did some 20,000 die immediately in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, more got Leukemia and had to die slowly. In pain.
Treaties, which are used every war(almost) are a perfect solution. So is being rational.
There are just better ways than assuming that the other won't listen. *cough*Peace Treaty! *cough*
E-mail me at [e-mail] if any of you have any differences. Hope it goes well! Post it on here somewhere, to let me know!
Sayonora
~Mariko

Answer 5

The atomic bomb saved lives in the long run by ending the war as fast as possible.. Any other alternative would have meant more lives lost on all sides. And without a doubt there would have been more loss of innocent lives from the nations that did not want war in the first place.

Answer 6

The only thing I can think of to support your debate would be that the USA would not have paid to rebuild Japan and the radiation caused from the bomb. But I think your fighting a losing battle though because if they would have had the A bomb we wouldn't be here today.

Although their will be a bunch of liberal crap about how we could have done things different, lets not forget the sneaky attack and Americans whom died at pearl harbor at which time the Japanese where signing a peace treaty around the same time. I think they still came out lucky because they would have done worse to use if they were in our shoes.

Answer 7

You should consider switching sides. After the invasion of Iwo Jima, America was ready to make a pass at the homeland, and was expecting over 1 million casualties. The Japanese were not gonna go down without a fight, even though they knew that they had no chance in hell of winning. If we hadn't dropped those bombs over Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, We'd be speaking Japanese at this moment, and Germany would have been motivated by our failed attempts at Japan and made a push outward. We would have lost the war, and Life would be LOADS different. I doubt Y/A would even exist right now.

Answer 8

Scourge -

I am assuming you are on the "NOT DROP THE BOMB" side of the debate. Having done speech and debate, the point is whether you/I agree with the position, that's the position you are trying to defend. The main points AGAINST dropping the bomb were:

*Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. 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.

*American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

*A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

*Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.

*The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

*The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

*Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

*Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.

You are definitely on a more difficult side of the debate, given the position you are supporting is more ex-post facto. The pro-side is going to argue these points:

*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. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender.

*With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.

*An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

*The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.

*Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.

*The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.

A lot of the Japanese war attrocities, plus the toughness of the Japanese at the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa were the major catalysts pushing for the bomb to drop. If you look at the fanticism of the Japanese specifically at Okinawa, most American intelligence reports estimated that the invasion of Honshu would have cost at least 1,000,000 additional lives, of which 250,000 would be Americans.

An excellent book that primarily supports the pro concept, yet the last chapter has some excellent nuggets for you on the against concept is War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War by John Dower. The epilogue of the book mentions intelligence reports regarding both (a) the exhaustion of the japanese at the end of the war, and (b) the pro-democracy underpinnings of Japanese society in the 1920's and its relation to the Japanese people.

Another book worth looking at is Japan At War: An Oral History by Haruko Taya Cook which has several survivor's narratives about their plight / experiences / suffering at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Finally, of course is the websites for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki memorials:

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/index_e.html
http://www.peace-nagasaki.go.jp/eng/ftop.html

And the website for the Atomic Testing Museum:
http://www.atomictestingmuseum.org/

Good luck and let me know how the debate works out!

Answer 9

If we didn't drop the bomb it would have taken a million American lives(this is quoting General. MacArthur) and then we wouldn't have known if we would have won or not. Ask a pow from the Bataan death march if we should have dropped the bomb or not. They wouldn't have hesitated to drop it on us. Why are you against it? Because it killed "civilains". Those civilains were trained to fight our soldiers. These were not innocents.

Answer 10

Nope, sorry. I think three hundred percent that it was the absolute right thing to do and the only alternative to loosing at least a million more of our husband, fathers, brothers and sons not to mention millions of Japanese, including children who were indoctrinated with "fight to the death." If, though, you search YAnswers for this question, I am sure you will find those who, thinking like it happened yesterday, disagree with having dropped it, and can give you some ideas. Good luck any way!