Was the United States justified in using atomic weapons on two Japanese cities to end World War II?
Carefully consider the evidence at hand, not the 20/20 vision we have in 2012. Using ONLY the the pieces of evidence below, write a blog post (minumum of 8 sentneces) stating your position and defending your actions. You may engage in civil discourse with another poster - CIVILY. :)
Your first post is due by History class on THURSDAY.
 |
| Death Totals for Island Invasions near Japan |
I believe the United States did the correct action of dropping the bomb. The Japanese continued to fight after the United States warned them of the consequences. In my perspective, it seems like Japan thought the war was all a game with their rules of no surrendering and fight no matter the conditions. The United States needed to prove themselves, and put their foot down on the end of the war. Dropping the bomb was necessary for the war to end. Although, the bomb killed thousands of civilians, Japan suspected what was coming and did not stop. I would say Japan brought the deaths upon themselves because they did not stop the first or second time they were asked they got severe consequences in return.
ReplyDeleteI believe the United States was right to use atomic weapons on the Japs. I think it was right because with out the Americans using powerful weapons against Japanese we might not have ended the war it might have gone on for longer. If we did not drop the atomic bomb to stop the Japanese, they would not have surrendered. The kamikazes would have kept bring down more american planes and blowing up american ships. When we dropped the bomb on the Japs. The bomb killed so many Japanese military people that it really helped end WWII, because it also had an after affect of radiation poising which killed even more people. Though the bad part was it also killed many innocent people who might not have believed in the Japanese government. Though the result was an end to one of the worst war. So, i do think it was a good idea to use the weapons but it was also bad that so many people had to die.
ReplyDelete-Taylor
I believe that the dropping of the bomb on Okinawa was justifiable. The Japanese were going to battle to the death either way, so this was simply bringing Japan's loss closer. The death toll on both sides, however, was very intense. Even though the Allies lost less than the Nazis, it was still a big risk to take to use the nuclear weaponry. The second drop, however, was even more justifiable. The fact that Japan had no response to the first makes all signs point to "it's your own fault." Even though it brought a high death toll, Japan was a growing power that needed to be stopped. Their fight-to-the-death strategy, in a way, was budding Nazism, because just as children were excited about joining the Hitler Youth, the Japanese soldiers essentially wanted to die. The first bomb was more of a test; the second was common sense (to stretch things a little).
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think the United States was justified in using atomic weapons on the Japanese. If the atomic weapons were not dropped, the war would not have ended as quickly. If we did not drop the bomb on Japan the Kamikazes would have continued because the Japanese motto was to never give up. This shows how big of an impact that the bombs put onto the Japanese. After the United States bombed the Japanese, Japan surrendered which went against their motto. When the bombs were dropped it caused many casualties. Many people that were not even a part of the war died. Although if the bombs were not dropped, more people probably would have died because of the war. The United States dropping the bombs was both good, and bad. There was good things that came out of the bombs being dropped, and bad things.
ReplyDelete-Caitlin Hadjis
I think it was wise of the United States to use the Atomic bomb on Japan. The only alternative would have been spending months, even years retaking island after island in Japanese territory. Millions of lives would have been lost and the world war would have dragged on indefinetly. I think planning an entire invasion of a foreign country could be dangerous and making a little mistake might put our army in unecessary danger.
ReplyDeleteThe use of the bomb did save lives all over the world, and advertised the United States military strength. This could have prevented further retaliation from Germany and Japan in the later years. I think the use of the bomb was the only realistic answer to end the war, as Japan would not negotiate a peace treaty.
The United States was right to use atomic weapons on the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. War had been going on for years, with the usage of the atomic weapons World War II was put to an end within just three months. The Japanese were strong fighters who were not ready to give up, they were going to put up a strong fight and not back down. There was no "civil" way to end the war with the Japanese. Whatever it was that was going to end the war, it was going to be brutal. Bombing the Japanese may have not been the most civil action to take, however it put the war to an end within a matter of months. Some may argue that something a bit more peaceful could have been done in efforts to end a war which had taken thousands of lives. The Japanese however, were not in favor of peace, they were in it to win it. In a sense, the United States had no other options. Numerous times they had taken other measures to end things, the usage of atomic weapons was all that was left, and was a definite way to end the war.
ReplyDeleteName, please...if you want credit.... :)
DeleteMr. Stribling
That's me!!! Sorry Mr. Stribling!
Delete-Francesca (:
Dear Mr. Stribling,
ReplyDeleteFighting for 82 days, for a small island called, Okinawa is to long to take over an island, and the United States had not even begun trying to take over the main Japanese Island. Also the United States lost 45,029 soldiers, and the Japanese lost 94,401 soldiers. If the United States did not drop the Atomic bomb on the Japanese sooner, the end of the war would have taking a long time, and a lot more lives would have been lost. Dropping the Atomic bomb did end the war faster, and the United States did not loose many men. The "fighting" would have been done in a matter of seconds, and the Japanese would have gotten a wake up call, that their motto of not surrendering was not helping them succeed in this war. The Atomic bomb had good and bad outcomes. The good outcomes was the war was over. The bad outcomes was that the Japanese did loose a lot of people, but using kamikazes as a fighting technique also added many lifes to the total deaths.
Overall, I do think that the United States in using the Atomic bomb.
~Skye
Sorry at the end its supposed to be:
DeleteOverall, I do think that the United Stated was justified in using the Atomic Bomb.
Although I do see what Jack is saying!
I have to agree with Caitlin. The Japanese motto of "never surrender" proved to the United States through the Battle of Okinawa that Japan was not going to give up quite as easily as they had wanted. Even though Japan had lost twice as many troops as the U.S. had, it was still a devastating loss. The U.S. knew that worse was to come because Okinawa was only a small island, and they still had the mainland of Japan to conquer. The U.S decided that it would be best to use atomic bombs against Japan, in hopes of ending the war sooner, and saving more soldiers' lives. The first atomic bomb hit Hiroshima, and when Japan still did not surrender, the U.S. launched another atomic bomb, this time a Nagasaki. In a way, this was a display of America's military might to Japan, Soviet Russia, and the rest of the world. Although I don't think it was necessarily right of the United States to use atomic weapons against Japan, it did end the war sooner and probably saved many American soldiers' lives.
ReplyDelete-Savannah Jelks 8A
Don't forget to write your name in the post and make reference to the newspaper article! :)
ReplyDeleteMr. Stribling
Yes, The United States was right in using atomic weapons on two Japanese cities to end World War II. The war in Europe had already ended, and the Japanese would not surrender. If the Americans had continued to fight the Japanese, thousands more people would have died. The Japanese believed in "fight to the death" strategy; the Japanese would make sure that they never gave up. Continuing the war would have resulted in more deaths than needed. Also, If the war had continued, other countries could have allied with Japan and created more of a resistance against Allied forces. It was almost useless to fight the Japanese powers because they would never give up. If the atomic weapon had not been used, many more lives would be lost to the war, and nothing would be gained.
ReplyDelete- James Manship
FROM 8B
DeleteI will play the devils advocate this time and say that the bomb was unnecessary and unneeded. Having such a massive weapon at our disposal was a deterrent and it is likely that japan would have surrendered at the prolonged bombing of their cities. Killing so many innocents so quickly without remorse was frankly unjustified and uncivilized. The continuous bombings of military facilities and areas would have had a minimal civilian casualties. If we truly needed to a display of the power near tokyo would have scared the leaders enough while have no deaths if done correctly.
Delete-KingJacko (Jack Brown)
There is that side of it too, Jack, but I believe the the Allies were right in dropping the bomb. ^
Delete||
||
I do believe that the United States was justified in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After asking Japan the surrender and not receiving a response, America felt that dropping bombs would be the most logical way to get their point across. Sending troops in would have been to dangerous and taking the Japanese's "fight to the death" strategy into account and calculating the amount of predicted deaths to be around 1,000,000 an invasion would have been much to risky. Even after dropping the bomb on Hiroshima the Japanese still did not respond. This of corse probably angered the Americans even more causing them to drop a second bomb on Nagasaki which killed thousand more, not to mention all of the radiation that had spread and killed others throughout Japan. What I DO NOT agree with however is the theory that the bombs were dropped only to show the Soviets that they weren't afraid to use weapons such bombs. If this statement is true, then the United States taking innocent (well not really) lives in order to prove themselves to the Soviets is sickening and inhuman. If this was the real reason why American dropped the bombs on these two cities then I would hope no one would agree that the States should be justified. Otherwise, I do believe that the US did do the right thing...Sorry if thats a little confusing! All my thoughts kinda just poured out!
ReplyDelete-Kennedy 8B
The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an inhumane act. No matter how many lives were saved, or how "necessary" the action was, it was wrong. It is not a lie to say that around 175,000 people lost their lives. It is a lie to say that 175,000 people were affected. Many more people were affected. The whole country was affected. The towns had significant importance to Japan and its people.
ReplyDeleteThe dropping of the bomb was a nasty way of showing military might. Although it is claimed that the bomb prevented lives lost, it was a brutal way to end the war. It was unnecessary to drop a bomb that would kill so many people and would just be a continuation of the already atrocious air raids on civilians.
The soldiers who were fighting in the war, on both sides were trying to protect their country. Soldiers who fought in the war were prepared for their deaths. Japanese non-combatants who were eating breakfast, were probably not. Men who were of the age to be mentally capable of killing and destroying other's lives were fighting the war; not children.
The invasion on Japan would be a disaster for both sides of the war. The thought that there were only two paths to end the war was completely wrong. If the US had attacked Japanese territories gained before and during the war, and debated peace after the territories of the Pacific had been sorted out, there would be no disagreements. Further aggression by Japan could be easily solved using diplomacy and more humanitarian actions.
-Morgan W
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI so think that the United States of America was right for dropping the Atomic Bomb, because we did not know how long this war would last. It could take days, months, or even years. I think it was best in our own way to win the war because who noes how many more deaths and casualties there would have been if we did not drop the bomb. Also it was for our own protection, the Japanese way of "Never surrender", or the famous "kamikazes" they would have steady pounded troops at us from every direction and it would have been to much for United States. It seems it would be better to live with a free nation without an enemy, or live in a nation where we are all bandaged in chains. The bomb also saved lives, we had lost close to 200,000 lives there. If we did not drop the bomb im sure that the deaths would be in the near millions.
ReplyDeleteSome what I thick that the US did the right thing. the US could ether drop a bomb or invade japan and lose millions of US troops and more japan.
ReplyDeletePROS-
This action was the best idea because so there would be not allot of casutes (sorry for the spelling) and lives taken. This also stoped japanise sloiders dieing and learning that doing suicide is really BAD.
CONS-
This had some bad things also. The nuke killed 70,000 inasent people in japan. This may have also hert the economy because nukes causes allot of money
This is Daniel Toth reporting I think
After reviewing and reading everyones thoughts, i can not make a decision. You can definitely look at the bombing as being right or wrong. It was the right action too take because the Japenese were being stubborn. They would not back down, so we had to attack and conquer some way. I guess it would be better in the sense that there would be less deaths for the Americans. Now, it was the wrong action to take because it was slighlty cowardly, meaning we couldn't just "tough it out". Just setting a bomb off on tons of people is not right and it is inhumane. Even though Japan was being annoying and not budging we still could have fought them regularly, face to face. In conclusion, if we did not have that bomb set off we might have lost the war and it was a good way to say "backoff" and a good way to get our point across.
ReplyDelete-Katherine
I believe that the United States was completely justified in using the bombs against the Japanese. Japan had taken the oath to fight to the death, and not surrender at anything. It was necessary measures in order to finish the war. America not only warned Japan of what would happen if they continued fighting, but knew that the Japanese would at no doubt stop at nothing. It probably perseved lives in the end, as a total death toll. War is war, and when a country enters the war, then that is that. There can be no sympathy for the enemy, because than we might have lost. Yes, it was tragic; I agree, but it was necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think we should of dropped the bomb mainly, because of the Kamikaze way of thinking. The Japanese we so strong that they would not back down matter what. The Japanese were wiling to fight it out even to the death. The Japanese army had baned the words: surrender, retreat, and anything that meant giving up in any form. Our army did not ban those words from the war handbooks, so just proving that slight difference in cultures shows that the Japanese are much stronger when it comes to battle. Yes tough battles might be more "Fair", but it might just be much easy to just drop a bomb. And its not like the Japanese did not surprise, because going back to Pearl Harbor they planed a surprise attack on American were we were not really prepared for. If we bomb Japan it is almost like "warefare payback" in a sense. It would just be much more easy to drop a bomb than to go than to go into another battle with Japan
ReplyDeleteKirsten Germroth
I believe the United States' action of dropping a nuclear bomb on the Japanese was justified. I believe this because even though the nuclear bomb killed thousands of people, I think more people would die if they stayed and fought for Japan. When the United States was focusing on capturing Okinawa there were over 100,000 casualties, both sides losing a large amount of soldiers. These casualties came from defending a small island, the amount of blood that would be shed over their home, Japan, is inconceivable. The amount of casualties would be even higher because of Japan's "never surrender" attitude. It would be a major lose for both sides and although innocent civilians died because of the nuclear bomb, the amount of casualties is no where near the amount if the Japanese and the United States had continued fighting. A lot of deliberation went into the United States pulling the trigger on nuclear bombs, but it was a tough decision that needed to be made and the was justifiable because the outcome they were looking for benefited all.
ReplyDelete-Bria
I am way too tired to read any of these so I am just going to answer the question and go to bed. The Japanese brought the war upon themselves, and their citizens were completely brainwashed. The Americans never went into World War II for the glory or the winnings, they only joined because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in hopes of destroying our Pacific fleet. Think about how hard it was just to take one TINY island from the Japanese, and at what cost? Tens of thousands of lives? If it was that hard to take over small, remote Pacific islands, think about how many Japanese AND Americans would die if America invaded Japan. Probably up in the millions. So, yes people did die at both Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but it was worth it, because millions of other Japanese and American lives were saved because of it.
ReplyDelete-Patrick
Yes, the Americans were justified to use Atomic Bombs on Japanese. It took 82 days just to get Okinawa which is a small island. The Japanese didnt care as much about Okinawa and even after the Americans slaughtered them in the battle they refused to give up. If they cared about Okinawa imagine how much they would care about Japan itself. So if we did not use atomic weapons than the war could have lasted for a long time. The Holocaust was coming to an end and Americans wanted to end involvment in the war. So therefor I believe the Americans had a right to use the weapons and if they didnt there would be more American casulties which would be unecessary.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Justin that the Americans were justified to use Atomic Bombs on the Japanese. The time it took to get the American troops across the Pacific to fight in a small battle was outrageous. It would be much more reasonable considering time to use Atomic Bombs. The Japanese motto to never surrender made the war much more difficult to get over with. I think it was a war ender to use the atomic weapons. Japan lost many soldiers at the battle at this small island, almost twice as many as the United States. It was taking a huge amount of time that the Us didn't not want to waste. They need to make a huge impact on using the new technology weapons.
ReplyDelete- John
I think that these articles further prove my point. This being the dropping of, now revealed illegal, bombs on Japan, was a cruel and unusual way to reveal the United States' military prowess. A fourteen year-old, just like myself, died just so that the US could flex its muscles and show its dominance in nuclear technology. In accordance with its own league of nations, the US, who had been dropping incendiaries on Japanese civilians, were violating their own code. The destroying of Japan's infrastructure because they had fought to secure a more leveraged position on the world stage, made the entire US's argument of why they did drop the bombs a fallacy. This evidence brought together shows that, whether or not the claims of saving lives is true, the US's military actions against unarmed civilians was a serious war crime.
ReplyDelete- Morgan W
This is for the second post, not the first.
Delete- Morgan W
well I new the background of the situation of the bomb droping on the two japiness city's. I also did not look at it that way killing
ReplyDeletea bunch of people unarmed is a act of terrorism and was poor on Americas part. we also ignored the code that we made. The u.s.a did not get permission to drop the bomb on japan. we should have done bombing raids on armed people insted of one big boom and none of this terror would have happened. we beter be giving them ALOT of aid even today because of this unconstitutional action.
-Daniel Toth signing off I think
I dont think that the US should of dropped the bomb, mainly because it affected other citizens, instead of the military. There is really no fair and unfair when it comes to war, but it is inhumane to make other people suffer, for a war that they are not even involved in. I think that the Americans should of dropped a differnt type of bomb that was not as deadly.
ReplyDeletehere is a video that shows the affects of the bomb:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLEaHvhAcyE
James Wood
ReplyDeleteI believe the United States was completely right to dropping the bomb on Japan. This way no Americans died maybe some lived in the two locations where the bombs were dropped but no one can tell now because the cities were demolished. Also The American generals had to think if 30,000 thousands troops died taking a small island and it took 82 days. Plus the Japanese don’t surrender and fight to the death and American troops don’t do that kind of crazy stuff. So taking Japan their main homeland and were their government is and is most likely heavily guarded with the most powerful and most trained troops. It would take two or more years to declare victory and many causalities both sides American and Japanese. James Wood
James Wood
ReplyDeleteI believe the United States was completely right to dropped the bomb on Japan. This way no Americans died; maybe some lived in the two locations where the bombs were dropped but no one can tell now because the cities were demolished. Also the American generals had to think about the losses if 30,000 troops died taking a small island and it took 82 days. Plus, the Japanese don’t surrender and fight to the death and American troops don’t use those kind of tactics. So taking Japan their main homeland and where their government is and is most likely heavily guarded with the most powerful and most trained troops would be very hard. It would take two or more years to declare victory and many causalities on both sides for America and Japan James Wood
I believe that America had no right to drop the bombs on Japan. Even though this would result in less death, it would result in more civilian death. There it no reason to attack the people who are not attacking you. Even thought most of the deaths would be instant, there are still a large amount that are from poisoning. This would result in a slow and painful death. There is no explanation to the horrors that the atomic bomb brings. The deaths that would result if the atomic bomb was not dropped would be much greater but would be of military deaths and not civilian deaths. Over all it was a very bad idea to drop the bombs on Japan.
ReplyDelete~Dylan