We did the right thing using the bomb on Hiroshima. Apparently.

Watch
Poll: Did US President do the right thing in authrorising the atomic bombs?
Yes, that was the right decision (49)
37.12%
No, that was the wrong decision (70)
53.03%
Can't say because I don't know anything about (13)
9.85%
ShotsFired-9941
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
56% Americans surveyed say the bombing on Japanese cities were justified.


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...f-atomic-bomb/


Image

Disappointing but I guess future generations would be more displeased with this. So it's ok?

To end the post on a slightly brighter note:

Leaked diplomatic cables from 2009 suggested that the Japanese government had rebuffed the idea of a US apology and a visit to Hiroshima by President Barack Obama.

But US diplomats have regularly attended the annual commemorations, and three years ago, a grandson of former US President Harry Truman, who gave the order to drop the bombs, attended peace ceremonies in Hiroshima.
1
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Here's some newly discovered information about Japan's nuclear programme.

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la...ry.html#page=1
0
reply
thunder_chunky
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
Future generations can disgaree all they like, but the only other realistic option was a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland. That may have cost hundreds of thousands of deaths, perhaps more. It was necessary to end the war once and for all.
It's not like the decision to was made easily either. Of course it will always be a topic of debate, but really it was a necessary action.
7
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
Where does TSR find some people (the two that say no).. Japan attacked the US and they were essentially conquered for it. I see nothing wrong or undeserving with that at all.
0
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
I wouldn't say it was right. It was just less wrong than the alternative, which was a ground invasion.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Rakas21)
Where does TSR find some people (the two that say no).. Japan attacked the US and they were essentially conquered for it. I see nothing wrong or undeserving with that at all.
Tehran, Moscow or some student union.
4
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
Well, the Japanese planned to defend their lands with millions with the hopes of a white peace. So, a low casualty estimate would be a million deaths just on the Japanese side.

The use of the bombs probably did save lives in the long run on both sides.

I guess an argument could be made about whether better targets could have picked but I am not sure the Casualty rate would have been that different if other places had been picked.
4
reply
2NathanAllen
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
The Japanese learned who not to mess with really quickly... And now Japan and the USA or great allies

Posted from TSR Mobile
2
reply
JoshDawg
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
I think future generations just judge on what has happened, without realising the consequences of not doing this at the time. It's easy to sit back and say that was wrong, but it was necessary.
3
reply
irfan98
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by 2NathanAllen)
The Japanese learned who not to mess with really quickly... And now Japan and the USA or great allies

Posted from TSR Mobile
At the expense of 220 000 dead men, women and children (including babies)...
2
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by irfan98)
At the expense of 220 000 dead men, women and children (including babies)...
145,000 Japanese civilians died when Okinawa was taken.

God knows how many civilians would've died had mainland Japan need to have been taken.
2
reply
Falcatas
Badges: 9
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
America never had to go to war in the first place, no country should. Governments and the notion of authority are the cause of all wars.

There was no moral justification for forcing people to murder other people and committing mass murder.
7
reply
Europe Born
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by irfan98)
At the expense of 220 000 dead men, women and children (including babies)...
And how many more would have died during an invasion. Look at Okinawa. The nuclear bombed killed many and also saved many more.
3
reply
username1494226
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
There is no way of morally trying to justify the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You can argue from a logical stand point that the atom bombs forcing their surrender spared many more lives that would have been lost in the event of an invasion of mainland Japan. You can also argue that had they not been dropped there and then, they wouldn't have surrendered, Russia would have sent forces into Japan and we could have had a Korean scenario with Japan being split into two. This could have brought a much grimmer fate to the people of Japan as a whole if we use North Korea as an example. It was simply the lesser of two evils by dropping the atom bomb. The loss of life in those wars can never be justified.
8
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Falcatas)
America never had to go to war in the first place, no country should. Governments and the notion of authority are the cause of all wars.

There was no moral justification for forcing people to murder other people and committing mass murder.
I remind you that Japan was the one which attacked first, bombing Pearl Harbour and invading the Philippines. America couldn't possibly allow such an attack to happen and not respond, because protecting its people is the first responsibility, above all others, of any government that has ever existed and ever will.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
yeahmerica
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
Yeahmerica!
...but in hindsight when one considers the socio-political impact of the deployment of a weapon of mass destruction on a civilian population vis-a-vis other means of warfare such as that of attrition and world wide economic sanctions, the atom bomb is arguably one of the most ill-considered action ever carried out by a nation winning so decisively in a war.
4
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Future generations can disgaree all they like, but the only other realistic option was a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland. That may have cost hundreds of thousands of deaths, perhaps more. It was necessary to end the war once and for all.
It's not like the decision to was made easily either. Of course it will always be a topic of debate, but really it was a necessary action.
How on earth was it necessary?

Conservative estimates of the death toll put it at 300,000, and it may have been as high as 900,000. So in what way would a ground invasion have been worse, in your view?
2
reply
username1915455
Badges: 7
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
The Atomic Bomb was probably a better option than an invasion of Japan, against the Japanese army, who were near fanatical and believed death was more honourable than surrender. A much better target should have been chosen than a city with little military or tactical value or targets. Conventional, more tactical, bombing would have been the much better option. I agree it was necessary to militarily defeat the Japanese, but the A-Bomb was probably not necessary. It at least should have a much more 'last ditch' option, and may never have been dropped if someone had stopped to consider the long term consequences of such a devastating weapon. Also, the bombing of Nagasaki had even less justification than Hiroshima, it was not necessary and it effectively acted as a weapon test for the Americans, causing many thousands to die or suffer in the long term.

I expect most people will disagree with me, arguing that it was justified to save lives in the long term. This is true, but it does not justify the deaths from radiation poisoning, the awful death many people suffered (many were vaporised without a trace left) or the long term social or health effects on the Japanese survivors.

Overall I believe, perhaps cynically, that American would always have won without the atom bomb, but that the US government wanted a totally convincing win, even humiliation, of the Japanese. They also wrightly, wanted to preserve life, but it seemed they valued the lives of American soldiers far above that of the Japanese civilians who were killed.
7
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by TurboCretin)
How on earth was it necessary?

Conservative estimates of the death toll put it at 300,000, and it may have been as high as 900,000. So in what way would a ground invasion have been worse, in your view?
No they don't. Estimates of the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are between 130,000 and 250,000 in total, with up to 1,900 later deaths due to cancer caused by the fallout.

In contrast, a ground invasion was estimated to result in at least half a million Allied dead alone, and many times more Japanese soldiers and civilians. It would have been far worse than the invasion of Germany, for invaders and invaded alike.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Arbolus)
No they don't. Estimates of the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are between 130,000 and 250,000 in total, with up to 1,900 later deaths due to cancer caused by the fallout.

In contrast, a ground invasion was estimated to result in at least half a million Allied dead alone, and many times more Japanese soldiers and civilians. It would have been far worse than the invasion of Germany, for invaders and invaded alike.

Posted from TSR Mobile
This article seems to disagree (at the end). What's your source?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33754931
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What is your favourite revision method?

Taking notes manually (78)
20.74%
Note taking apps (7)
1.86%
Flashcards (86)
22.87%
Revision guides (19)
5.05%
Past papers (172)
45.74%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (14)
3.72%

Watched Threads

View All