Why was it wrong for the U.S to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski to end World War 2?

Question

ok, so im having a debate with this one kid in my history class on monday and i want to be prepared. i basically have to know why was it wrong for us americans to drop the bombs on japan. im against the bombing so i need information from my side. you guys can also give me an idea of what my opponent might say so i can give a counterargument.
i also have to write an essay and my teacher gave us absolutely no information or sources for research. i would love it if u can give me cites on this subjest. PLEASE AND THANK YOU!! :)

Answer 1

This is, I suppose, a good subject for a debate, as there are many arguments which can be rallied on either side. I can help you out with a few.

One of the first reasons why it might have been arguably unethical was because we didn't at that time know exactly what the bomb would do. If you look at records of the time, it can be found that we knew some things about radiation's effects on people, but much of our current knowledge was developed over decades of study AFTER WW2. We knew it would explode like a very, very big bomb... and we also know it would do other things... just not exactly what.

The 'exactly what' is another good reason why the bombings might have been considered to be wrong. The reason why we stopped doing test explosions on the surface was because even explosions in Nevada caused MEASURABLE increases in stillbirths and birth defects in New York. One bomb is enough to spread radioactive fallout across hundreds and even thousands of miles. Thus, we put at risk almost everyone in that area of Asia, friend and foe alike.

More specificially, there is the Geneva Convention. Signed well before WW2, it prohibited certain kinds of weapons as completely inhumane, based on the kinds of damage they did. Among them are flame-throwers, phosporus explosives, and other things that cause burns and long-term painful wounds. Some of the survivors of the two nuclear bombings had patterns from their clothing BURNED into their skin (link 1). Many developed cancer and other long-term debilitating diseases. Almost all of them were civilians. Nuclear weapons, of course, didn't exist when the Geneva Convention was signed... but the kinds of damage they do are obviously against its spirit (there are those who maintain that it was an overt violation of other treaties). I could find you some descriptions of what it is like to die over weeks of radiation poisoning, but the descriptions are truly sickening. You are happier not hearing them.

Which raises another interesting point. We knew there were American citizens in Hiroshima. Some were attending school, and though there was no prisoner-of-war camp, there were undoubtedly many POWs there too. It is estimated we bombed more than two thousand of our own citizens (link 2). The government COULD have chosen a strictly military target, but they specifically wanted to maximize casualties for 'psychological effect' (link 3).

There are also a number of people who have argued that the bombings were not even militarily necessary. Many indicators suggest that Japan might have surrendered without EITHER a nuclear or a conventional attack. Dwight D Eisenhower, General MacArthur, and the United States Bombing Survey were ALL of this opinion. Which is an excellent counter to the idea that the bombings saved lives by preventing a conventional invasion!

All of which gives you a pretty good start. Hope that helps!

Answer 2

Japanese military leaders were still fanatical about persuing the war. They felt an acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration would have removed the Emperor from the throne, an act with the Japanese military could not abide.

Civilians were being trained to attack with sharpened bamboo poles. Thousands of suicide aircraft and boats were hidden away to use against the allied invasion. Since 1935, Japanese schoolchildren were being taught to use weapons, and a militaristic school of thought.

The information available to president Truman at that time, spoke of 500,000 American troop casualties, not unrealistic when you take into account the "fight to the last breath" philosophy the Japanese military embraced during the Pacific Campaign. The Code of Bushido. To die for the Emperor is a divine act.

The Japanese civilian population had been lied to, concerning Japanese military losses throughout the war, and really didn't know the scope of the looming defeat.

Leaflets were dropped over the intended Japanese target cities before the bombs were used, advising them to leave. It wasn't taken seriously.

Even after the bombs were dropped, strong factions in the Japanese Army tried to stage a coup to prevent the surrender.

Sorry if this doesn't help your cause, but you cannot judge the actions of 66 years ago by todays sensibilities.

Answer 3

If he knows the subject well he will tell you that the only reason we remember the atomic bombings is that atomic bombs were used. More people died when Dresden was bombed, and more people died when Tokyo was fire bombed than in either of the atomic bombings.

He may also argue that the bombings did in fact save Japanese lives. If the allies, USSR was preparing to invade as well, would have invaded Japan they likely would have been forced ot use chemical weapons to ousts Japanese troops and militias from their hiding places. The aftermath was estimated to kill millions of Japanese civilians And given the actions of Japanese civilians on other islands, many Japanese civilians would probibily have commited suicide or fought against the allied troops. (Allied POW's would have been massacred in all likelihood.)

He could make the often overlooked argument that Japanese civilians were forwarned of the attack by leaflets dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prior to the bombings.

Needless to say he may argue that the invasion would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of American causlaties. He should make the argument that using the bombs shortened the war and allowed the US to dictate peace terms to Japan which allowed for a lasting peace in the area.

Answer 4

It is good that you seek advice on any subject but when you wish to put a rational it is best that you do your own research first.

The atomic bomb would have been used by Germany if they could have developed it first on the allies including the USA.

So be it. Your main focus is what you have put in your added rational. The bombs were dropped on soft targets, being the general civilian population and not the war machine itself.

There should be enough information on atomic warfare and the effects on the Webb so start entering your search generator.

Answer 5

The battle of Iwo Jima led allied forces to believe that the mainland battle was going to be a bloody, messy, costly ordeal. As you may already know, the US had a deciphering device that enabled them to break Japanese codes. Through this, they determined that even women and children were going to join the battle of the mainland. By dropping the bombs, thousands of US troops were spared and countless Japanese lives as well. Also had the US and allied navies merged on the waters off Japan, a major typhoon would have hit the fleet sending many troops and ships to the bottom of the sea. Another "divine wind" episode. They were estimating HUGE, HUGE casualties in the mainland battle. By dropping the two bombs, lives were actually saved on BOTH sides. By today's standards, it would not be politically correct to drop them but war never was nor will it ever be politically correct. War is NOT PC and cannot be fought and won PC. This has been proved again and again in Korea, in Viet Nam, and now in Iraq. When committed to war, nothing but total and complete victory should be of concern. WAR IS NOT PC!!

Answer 6

OMG I DID A PRESENTATOIN ON THIS AND GOT FULLMARKS.
oki...ummm.how were they wrong..

USA, they droppd the bombs because they said it would save lives, but tey meant it would save the lives of AMERICAN SOLDIERS and they dindt CARE if they would kill TEN THOUSANDS of INNOCENT japanese citizens! and besides Einsten and all scientists warned them, they didnt want the bombs to be dropped the prez knew PRFECTLY well that it woud cause massive civilian deaths. and he still dropped it.
74,000 died in nagasaki. 140,000 died in hiroshima. by then it wasnt a world war anymore because germany had surrendered.
so they had no right to drop TWO bombs on japan. one would have been more than enough.
I MEAN,AFTER THE FIRST BOMB THE USA SHOULD HAVE WAITED AT LEAST 3 DAYS TO SEE IF JAPAN WOULD SURRENDER OR NOT, not just drop another atomic bomb.
“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.” – Peter Kuznick writing about President Truman
Kuznick believed the USA was motivated to drop the bombs to show the USSR their new weapon. Military generals believed the bombs were unecesary.
there were so many alternatives. Naval blockade, conventional bombing, modification of surrender terms.
now, you still see babies being born deformed because of the radioactivity thing from the atomic bombs. the effect still lasts when the bombs were dropped 50 years ago.
now aint that sad?
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?." - Leo Szilard and Albert Einstein in a letter to President Roosevelt, 1939

Answer 7

One of the biggest and stupidest mistakes that anybody can make in history is to try to judge the actions of the past by the standards of the present.

Judged by the standards of its time, the decision to use the atomic bomb was perfectly correct. To learn history means to learn enough about the standards of the 1940's to see why this is true.

Judged by the different standards of today, it was maybe very wrong, but so what? How could those people taking that decision at that time have done any differently?

Some people think that Jesus was wrong not to raise a civil rebellion to free Israel from its Roman occupying forces. What do you think about that?

Answer 8

It was not wrong, and overall saved at least a million lives both Japanese and allies

The best estimate of the time showed over one million casualties, total including civilian, if the required landing were made in Japan, there numbers were based on the Japanese reaction at Okinawa. Of the one million the vast majority would have been civilians.

The dropping of the bomb saved far more then it killed

Answer 9

I don't believe it was a wrong decision, however I do understand the point of view that supports that argument. I would check the Truman Presidential Library and perhaps the US. Air Force Museum's Website.

Good Luck with your work. Open, informed and respectful debate is always a good thing.

~

Answer 10

well, well, a couple of you have it right. i was on guam when the bomb was dropped. we knew that russia had suddenly switched from germany to japan. russia got her part of germany, thanks to us, and now she was looking for a part of japan. had we invaded japan, it would have cost countless lives on both sides. in addition, russia would have wanted part of it. can you imagine a devided japan like germany? that was the reason for the hurry up. as far as being inhumane, maybe. but war is hell. none of you probably never saw some of the captured japanese films of what they did in china. be glad you did not. you cannot fathom the fierce patriotism in america in ww2. it dont exist today. i will not expand on what i have been saying, but lives were saved all around. as far as geneva convention went, i dont think japan ever heard of it. having fought in ww2, i hated japanese with a passion. today, i have a great respedt for them. i know, people should not be involved in a war, but times change. hindsight is 20-20 i could go on and on but you werent ther, i WAS.