frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Were the atomic bombings necessary?

The two on Japan at the end of WWII. It was very controversial in the years that followed but I believe it was the right decision because Japan had pledged to wage unconditional war. As society moves on, the legacy of the bombings is even more controversial, and some are going as far as to say Japan needs reparations or an apology.
programknwaarong
  1. Dropping the bombs was8 votes
    1. the right choice
      50.00%
    2. the wrong choice
      50.00%

Comments

  • No, the US could have continued to fight the war instead of dropping a long term issue on Japan.
    melanielustFr3ak
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Fr3ak

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • melanielustmelanielust 224 Pts
    edited June 13
    @Erfisflat

    Your source isn't very credible - the author seems to be open about trying to rewrite parts of history. Some of the quotes are also unprofessional, some are quite disturbing. For example:

    "send me lots of money so we can spread this message far and wide...." so it seems like he's just doing this in a desperate attempt for money? correct me if wrong
    "Second, direct your anger at the Japanese. We are the victims, and they are the aggressors. Make yourself feel important again by bashing Japan at every opportunity. Japanese people are inherently evil, and basically subhuman. They were never bombed, and if they would have been they would have deserved it." That right there is textbook racist and pretty awful to say.

    "Go to a library. Take a book at random. Skim it. Then, decide how that book is either for you or against you. If it is for you, quote liberally and out of context. If against you, do the same." ..said when he was describing how to get more information.

    I also looked up the author and he isn't a professor or anything, just a former student at MIT. That's a good school so credit for that but he also believes that Idaho doesn't exist.

    I actually tried to find more reliable sources that would support your argument (I still don't agree with you but I'm interested) but I just can't. Do you have any?
    billpassedFr3ak
  • ImbsterImbster 77 Pts
    edited June 13
    Japan did give those reparations,well an amount to our country was given and USA helped Japan economically boost during the cold war making it one of the best prospering economies at that time.

    Manila was declared an open city twice. The first time, Japan didn't listen and bombed it. The 2nd time, Japanese soldiers tried to declare it but the Americans didn't listen and also bombed it.

    The damages they inflicted on our economy, culture and country will never compare to two bombings on just two cities. Torture is worse than death. Bombs kill women but they don't rape them.

    It was explained to us that the Japanese were mad on why almost all Asian countries had major influence from foreign countries outside of the continent. Japan was very quiet for years until they wanted all foreign influences out by acquiring the same foreign forces. Even their slogan "Asia for Asians" won't convince me their brutality was necessary.

     I find the bombing necessary to stop them to really put a halt to any more possible plans they might have had. Clearly Japan didn't listen nor turn to stop when their soldiers were killed in battle. I find it funny few could scold Japan for their brutality but when Japan was in awe everyone scolded the Americans for retaliation calling it biblically unnecessary. This wasn't the Americans war sure but what Japan had invaded and taken weren't theirs either. Their extremist idea of eliminating foreign influence to preserve culture isn't what our country needed. We were about to have independence but they extended it thanks to their invasion.

    That's all in the past now anyways. I have nothing against present Japan.

    billpassed
  • That's a good school so credit for that but he also believes that Idaho doesn't exist.


    Anyone who doesn't believe that Idaho exists shouldn't be listed as a credible source..where else those nice potatoes come from, LOL.

    seriously, I don't believe that it was necessary to drop atomic bombs.  That was way too aggressive and inhumane for generations to come.
    melanielust
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • agsragsr 444 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, I only wish that nuclear weapons wouldn't exist.  Nuclear power is really dangerous, and it was unfortunate that it was used against Japan.  Arguably it saved many American lives, but at the same time messed up health of many generations of Japanese.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    agsr said:
    @Erfisflat, I only wish that nuclear weapons wouldn't exist.  Nuclear power is really dangerous, and it was unfortunate that it was used against Japan.  Arguably it saved many American lives, but at the same time messed up health of many generations of Japanese.
    You sure? 
     
    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/01/us/hiroshima-study-finds-no-genetic-damage.html

    They were claiming that nobody would be able to live there for 1,000 years. Vegetation regrowth started weeks later, and the Japanese started rebuilding right away.
    billpassed

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • agsragsr 444 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat, vegetation regrowth isnt indicative of nuclear disaster issues.  As a matter of fact, in places like Chernobyl, there was aggressive vegetation and animal growth post explosion in 1986.  
    While extend of long term impact  on health of Japanese based on nuclear bombs is debatable, this brief note from 27 years ago in Ny times is not a comprehensive conclusive evidence.
    melanielustbillpassed
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @Erisflat

    Were it completely accurate (and I have no reason to believe it's not accurate), the only thing that study proves is that the genetic damage caused by radiation is not hereditary, so it can not be passed down, which is good. But the immediate fallout still left many people's bodies severely damaged in ways that only radiation could.
    billpassed
  • billpassedbillpassed 56 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    I agree with @melanielust on their stance. Radiation is a major issue or was when this happened and something that maybe should Shen considered on a greater scale or a more important factor in the dropping of the lethal bomb.
  • ImbsterImbster 77 Pts
    That's a good school so credit for that but he also believes that Idaho doesn't exist.



    seriously, I don't believe that it was necessary to drop atomic bombs.  That was way too aggressive and inhumane for generations to come.
    Well seriously, it was also too aggressive for them to bring their extremist cultural preservation ideas. They invaded Philippines with a slogan of "Asia for Asians" when it was more like it was "Asians for Japan to freely rape". It wasn't necessary to destroy a declared open city, Manila but they didn't listen and ruined a great city turned industrially biased against government. Seriously are we just saying we shouldn't drop bombs on Japan because of the children, the women, the innocent people or their culture? Radiation effects much worse than mass murder?

    Inhumane for generations to come? So what if the whole world remembers Americans bombed Japan and only asian countries ruled by Japan at that time remember their mother being raped and defiled? They even implied force labor too but ultimately killed the labourer who already worked for them.

    So I'm not biased here to my country I'll name a simple story of Vietnam under that rule. They started propaganda and even put up Japanese language courses. Japan literature, poetry and films started being translated in their local languages. The only thing Japan really stands for at this time was only using your country's native language but when it comes to culture, they don't have an ideal for that.

    "Asia for Japanese". Scarily imperial.

    One third of the population okinawa and more than 200,000 soldiers and civilians were not only killed but RAPED by BOTH US and Japanese forces DURING BATTLE. What is war with these experiences?? Is it an excuse for soldiers to manifest their powers, true desires and interests? Comfort women plus guns?

    Even before world war 2 was the "Rape of Nanking"
    Stop looking at the 129,000 of humans dead in nagasaki and hiroshima and start looking at the tenfold times n amount of humans Japan killed, raped and tortured. What is so special with those people and those places?Radiation? The effects looked disgusting and rape doesn't?

     They didn't know a bomb was coming and all the other victim countries had seconds to avoid rape? Well Japan was actually warned that if they didn't surrender there would be "prompt and utter destruction". They were given a CHANCE, Oiknawan women???
    We shouldn't touch nor involve innocent people? Tell that to past Japan and their addiction to "comfort women" maybe they'll realise that America had an addiction to "comfort bombs" because America was relieved to believe they had saved half a million US lives with the bombing which I don't quite agree to the belief.

    Let's go back to history.

    Japan surrendered 6 days after the hiroshima bombing
    16 hours after hiroshima , Truman warned Japan of air strikes, navy attacks and land forces never seen on the face of this earth. Widely broadcasted I tell you but again Japan stayed silent and almost didn't listen. Now with no indication of Japanese surrender, a second bomb was agreed to be deployed on august 9 instead of 11 because of predicted weather storm. Military authorities got a letter about the bombing urging them to tell the damage possible to the public but no only to be revealed a month later.

    Do you now see how difficult it was to "diplomatically and biblically" negotiate with Japan?
    A third bomb was secretly requested by Truman on August 10 but never carried out.
    What mattered to Japan was their

    It is clearly stated here that his wishes to surrender were governed by "a new and terrible weapon" clearly pointing out the bomb was necessary.

    In his declaration, Hirohito referred to the atomic bombings:

    Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

    Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
    In Hirohito's speech, days before announcing it on radio on August 15, he gave three major reasons for surrender: Tokyo's defenses would not be complete before the American invasion of Japan, Ise Shrine would be lost to the Americans, and atomic weapons deployed by the Americans would lead to the death of the entire Japanese race.

    I rest my case.
    War definitely had to stop. Diplomatic actions aren't always safe and enough.
    http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki
  • Fr3akFr3ak 24 Pts
    One atomic bomb was necessary to end the war without significant casualties. Furthermore, we have the benefit of hindsight and greater knowledge of nuclear technology. At the time, they were at war and Japan was never going to surrender. With the knowledge they had, one bomb would have been enough. 2 bombs however was simply to send a message to the Russians and the rest of the world, and was quite uncalled for.
  • Fr3akFr3ak 24 Pts
    @programknw

    Continued fighting would only result in huge losses on both sides. We have the benefit of hindsight and greater knowledge of the consequences of using nuclear weapons, whereas they didn't know as much as we did. While I do believe that 2 bombs was excessive, 1 bomb was good enough to make Japan surrender. They would never have surrendered otherwise.
  • ImbsterImbster 77 Pts
    @Fr3ak
    By history the first bomb just confused the Japanese and made them have thoughts of surrender. Then they pulled themself together believing they could counter it and not give up yet.
  • Fr3akFr3ak 24 Pts
    @Imbster

    I was taught that they were going to surrender, as any sane people would after seeing such a powerful weapon in the enemy hands.
  • ImbsterImbster 77 Pts
    edited July 8
    @Fr3ak

    mhmm was that to make the americans look bad?
    I mean after being taught that the conclusion is why even drop a second bomb yes? Japan was actually warned by Truman before the first bombing but no man was sane during world war 2.
    I'm not pro american either after the massive rape conducted by the american soldiers in Japan after the two bombings.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch