I need this for a debate! So if u guys could plz help me out thanks
2007-05-05 07:26:54 · 11 answers · asked by Rahul M 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Because allowing 10 million Japanese people to die of starvation was cheaper than building the bombs?
2007-05-05 11:59:10 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the loss of life, of course. unfortunately, you got the bad end of the debate; all the good points lie with dropping the bombs. like we used them to prevent the Soviets from starting WW3 in Europe, to prevent catastrophic loss of life in the event of an Allied invasion (and believe me, the Japanese were prepared; more so than we thought), and to end the war. i cant come up with anything against those reasons; can you? sorry I couldn't be of more help, but please don't shoot the messenger lol. and good luck.
2007-05-05 21:32:21 · answer #2 · answered by F-14D Super Tomcat 21 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great discussion of this issue in David McCullough's biography "Truman".
Most compelling arguments were a lack of understanding of possible negative outcomes as no such bomb had ever been used. In hindsite historians agree that Fatman and Littleboy saved over 1,000,000 allied servicemen casualties.
2007-05-05 14:38:33 · answer #3 · answered by Halcyon 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
1- If we had not dropped it we could be speaking Japanese now.
2-Maybe even German, also.
3-Instead of importing from Japan, we could all be working for the emperor. Isn't that just grand?
4- We would ALL be eating sushi. Don't you just love sushi?
5- Give me that old time Buddhist religion.
2007-05-05 14:43:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Japan was beaten
Negotiations were underway
No defenses (plane dropped bomb without Japanese anti-aircraft fire)
Civilian cities
Warning to Soviets.
2007-05-05 14:30:28 · answer #5 · answered by Edward K 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
you got the short end of that deal
because there were too many good ones to drop it
2007-05-05 14:40:08 · answer #6 · answered by FOA 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The death of several hundred thousand innocent civilians (the elderly, women & children) for starters. This was not collateral damage; it was intentional to break the country's will to fight. Yet we villify dictators like Saddam who kill innocent people for the same reason-to break their will to fight and overthrow his government.
Not to mention that fact that the nuclear fallout resulted in long term pain and suffering, eventually death for many of the victims
2007-05-05 14:33:08 · answer #7 · answered by golfer7 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I dislike words without their vowels. I think you meant, "shouldn't've" rather than "shouldn't of"
2007-05-05 15:28:00 · answer #8 · answered by serious troll 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
many of the outlying areas outside of japan which they controlled were refusing to surrender. and we had a new toy we wanted to test.
2007-05-05 14:34:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Cheater, lol!
2007-05-05 14:45:13 · answer #10 · answered by MLVNDMS 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋