What Are some reasons we shouldn't of dropped the atomic bomb?

Question

I need this for a debate! So if u guys could plz help me out thanks

Answer 1

Apparently most people didn't read the part about you wanting reasons AGAINST dropping the atomic bomb.

If the US was so interested in saving American military lives, then all they had to do was look to the USSR. The Russians took the brunt of the European war and was a very strategic second front. So it was a no-brainer on what would happen to Japan. They were ready willing and able to start a second front on their long time enemy Japan. Same effect as what they did to Germany.

HOWEVER, the US dropped the bombs instead. They did it to flex their muscle to the world. You can argue that is the wrong reason.
They did it to keep the USSR out and keep Japan territory for themselves. (Doesn't matter if they set it up as a democracy - just that it would be a future alliance.) So, they are killing Japanese civilians including many children so that Japan would be under their control and not whole or partially under their own Ally, the USSR's control.

They dropped it to justify the expense. A $200 Million expense, that wasn't necessary to win, used at the last moment justifies spending it. Other projects after the war were criticized because the expenses were made, but the war ended before they were needed. Like Howard Hughes and the Spruce Goose.

It's true that many bombs were dropped on civilians over the war. It is true that more people were killed in other bombings. But it should have been clear by then that bombing civilian targets wasn't doing much good. Actually it seems to have cost more and used up valuable resources than effects it had. But we had the resources in place so they just kept doing it. So those arguing dropping more bombs (atomic) is justified because we killed more people in the past is barbaric. Does we killed over 70,000 civilians of Tokyo last month so we might as well kill an equal amount in Nagasaki this week. If your debate opponents bring up the Tokyo bombings be quick to point out that they were wrong too. Curtis LeMay in charge of the Pacific Campaign Bombing said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." (Not of Atomic bombing, but of civilian bombing in general.)

Answer 2

Think of all the innoncent children who died that day. The threat of dropping the bomb would have been enough.

Answer 3

There would have been thousands of more deaths, if the bomb had not been dropped. Plus, it was probably the only way to convince a very militaristic country to become peaceful.

Answer 4

There was no reason whatsoever. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki combined and yet Japan did not surrender.

Answer 5

IT HAD to be dropped. It was the ONLY way of showing stubborn Japan that they COULD POSSIBLY LOSE war and cause them to surrender. It killed countless Japanese, but the only other course was to kill countless Americans defeating them.

Answer 6

It can't be good for the enviromoent.