what are arguments against the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki??(question mark)??

Question

hm? oh okay. hi raymond and omar.

Answer 1

Against dropping the nukes:

1. The Japanese were ready to surrender, or at least had sent emmisaries via the Swedish Consulate to explore that avenue.

2. A dmonstration in the South Pacific would've showed them the force of the nukes. This was advocated by many scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project.

3. Further indiscriminate aerial bombing of civilians was inherently immoral, although at the time not a war crime.

The arguments for:

1. to save 1 million or so GI lives from having to go thru an invasion, looking at the results of Iwo and Guadalcanal.

2. to prevent Soviet hegemy in the Orient, similar to Eastern Europe....by ending the war sooner via the nuclear attacks.

Answer 2

No argument here. The bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a carefully considered and implemented action.

That we are able to, in hind sight, determine a better or nicer or whatever way to do something doesn't change the fact that AT THE TIME a Course of Action was decided upon to achieve a specific effect, in this case the surrender of the Japanese, that was deemed appropriate.

Do not live in the past, just learn from it. We cannot change what has transpired before us, so why harp on a futile exercise?

We saved potentially thousands of American lives by ending the Pacific Theatre in this manner. That Japanese civilians died is the price that needed to be paid to achieve peace, which we have had with Japan since the end of that engagement.

Answer 3

TO correct one of the anwers, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets, and the only cities that we hadn't leveled (on multiple occasions). Hiroshima was the largest staging point for military hardware headed for the south pacific, with a number of wartime industries in the city.

Another practical reason for the bombs was that the invasion of Japan would have required enough men and material to make June 6, 1944 look like two kids squabbling in a sand box, and American lives were more valuable to some Americans back then than they were today.

Answer 4

The debate to use the atomic bomb on Japan is over, it is now history, any further argument would be useless speculation. A more insightful question to ask is how has the use of the atomic bomb over 60 years ago had a lasting effect on the political climate today.

Answer 5

The justification for the bombing was that more lives (both american and japanese) were saved by speedily ending the war & avoiding invasion than were lost in the bombings. The flip side is that it is arguable that they were completely unneccessary because Japan had already defeated and could be peacefully induced to surrender due to the dire course the war was taking. It is also commonly believed that taking that many civilian lives was a crime against humanity and that by using the first nuclear weapons we set a dangerous precedent.

Answer 6

One of the main arguments against the using the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that, by the time the bomb was used Japan was already on the verge of losing the war and it wasn't necessary.

Another argument, is that using the bomb killed close to 170,000 innocent civilians, and that neither Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

Answer 7

The bombs were different. Some argue the Japanese were only test subjects for these two types of atomic weapons.

Answer 8

No arguments after 60+ years Its ancient history and it did the job it was supposed to do.

Answer 9

I think they should've destroyed an island that was uninhabited to demonstrate their power to the Japanese. Malcolm X said that the gov't used the atom bombs because the Japanese weren't white. That could be the case but I don't know for sure.

Answer 10

It set a dangerous precedent that using nuclear weapons is acceptable.