Thursday, March 22, 2012

Reconsider the Bomb

Hello All -

Very good job addressing the question from Wednesday night. Well done!

I've added two pieces of evidence below. Using these and the New York Times Article from before, do you still think it was acceptable to use atomic weapons?

Think critically and be sure to cite only the evidence!!!

Your response is due by History class on Monday.

Evidence #1:


PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR
Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly,
September 30, 1938.
The Assembly,
Considering that on numerous occasions public opinion has expressed through the most authoritative channels its horror of the bombing of civilian populations;
Considering that this practice, for which there is no military necessity and which, as experience shows, only causes needless suffering, is condemned under the recognised principles of international law;
Considering further that, though this principle ought to be respected by all States and does not require further reaffirmation, it urgently needs to be made the subject of regulations specially adapted to air warfare and taking account of the lessons of experience;
Considering that the solution of this problem, which is of concern to all States, whether Members of the League of Nations or not, calls for technical investigation and thorough consideration;
Considering that the Bureau of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments is to meet in the near future and that it is for the Bureau to consider practical means of undertaking the necessary work under conditions most likely to lead to as general an agreement as possible:
I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;
II. Also takes the opportunity to reaffirm that the use of chemical or bacterial methods in the conduct of war is contrary to international law, as recalled more particularly in the resolution of the General Commission of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of July 23rd 1932, and the resolution of the Council of May 14th, 1938.


Evidence #2:

"Effects of Nuclear Fallout"

Many people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki died not directly from the actual explosion, but from the radiation released as a result of the explosion. For example, a fourteen-year-old boy was admitted to a Hiroshima hospital two days after the explosion, suffering from a high fever and nausea. Nine days later his hair began to fall out. His supply of white blood cells dropped lower and lower. On the seventeenth day he began to bleed from his nose, and on the twenty-first day he died.

At Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the few surviving doctors observed symptoms of radiation sickness for the first time. In his book Nagasaki 1945, Dr. Tatsuichiro Akizuki wrote of the puzzling, unknown disease, of symptoms that "suddenly appeared in certain patients with no apparent injuries." Several days after the bombs exploded, doctors learned that they were treating the effects of radiation exposure. "We were now able to label our unknown adversary 'atomic disease' or 'radioactive contamination' among other names. But they were only labels: we knew nothing about its cause or cure... Within seven to ten days after the A-bomb explosion, people began to die in swift succession. They died of the burns that covered their bodies and of acute atomic disease. Innumerable people who had been burnt turned a mulberry color, like worms, and died... The disease," wrote Dr. Akizuki, "destroyed them little by little. As a doctor, I was forced to face the slow and certain deaths of my patients."

Doctors and nurses had no idea of how their own bodies had been affected by radioactivity. Dr. Akizuki wrote, "All of us suffered from diarrhea and a discharge of blood from the gums, but we kept this to ourselves. Each of us thought: tomorrow it might be me... We became stricken with fear of the future." Dr. Akizuki survived, as did several hundred thousand others in or near Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, at least ten people who had fled from Hiroshima to Nagasaki survived both bombs.

22 comments:

  1. I think these articles show how brutal the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan really was. I could not put myself in Franklin Delano Roosevelt position and decide that whether or not America would drop the bomb. Im sure the decision took very deep thought and that it took him a while to make that decision. But, Im still stiking with the argument that the war would have gone on for a longer time if we did not use the bomb. America would have to get to Japan and then after that capture the capitol. WHich is far away from the Japanese boarder on the Pacific. It would have taken months. Many more lives would have been lost not only American but, Japanese as well. Do I like the idea of dropping a bomb on people. No, im sure no one felt good about it. But I think it was the right choice in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Even considering the evidence,I think the allies still should have dropped the bomb. The aftermath of the bomb drop that is described to us, would have been more or less the same with a full scale invasion. People would die on a daily basis and suffering would be common. If the invasion had occurred, the situation that was described to us in the evidence would appear on both sides of the world. American troops and
    Japanese troops would be fighting and in the end civilians would most likely be caught in the crossfire. The protection against civilians resolution was also not followed which was proved in the London Blitz. America was never in the League of Nations and therefore the evidence cannot be held against them.
    Connor J

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the moment, the atomic bombs on Japan seemed like a reasonable idea. One that would make ending the war sooner, easier, and save more American soldiers' lives. But what about that of the Japanese civilians? As evidence #1 states, it is illegal to brutally harm another country and its people in such a way. We did it anyway though. Now, looking back on the bombing, we now know that the effects of the bomb were worse than imagined, and worse still, long term. As evidence #2 states, the Japanese people that didn't die instantly from one of the two bombs, had extreme side effects. These included radiation poisoning, which in a way, was even worse than the actual bombing itself. What might have seemed like a good idea to begin with, turned into a terrible calamity that I don't think anyone could have predicted.

    -Savannah Jelks 8A

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that The US did not have the right to bomb these two cities. This is because even though the loss of lives would be significantly less on both sides, the loss of lives would be military lives and not civilian lives. With dropping the bombs, the US brought the battle to those who were not fighting back. Also the battle was fought with poisoning instead of guns and man to man combat. This form of fighting is unprofessional, and also unfair to the ones who are not fighting at all. The poising of people filled up the hospitals so much that there was no room for others who have been fighting in the war. On the other hand, most of the deaths were instant and painless. On the battle field, almost every death is painful and takes up room in the hospital. But the room taken up because of a battle would not be as much as the space taken up because of the bombs. Over all, I say it is unnecessary to drop the bombs on the innocent civilians.
    ~Dylan Mather

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Mr. Stribling,

    After looking over the other pieces of evidence, I would have to agree with Savannah. That in the moment, dropping the atomic bomb seemed like a good idea, and ending the war, but killing and/or injuring civilians, that were not the ones fighting, was probably unnecessary. Evidence #1 states that intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal, but the United States dropped the Atomic Bomb anyway. Also, evidence #1 states that any attack on legimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian population in the neighorhood are not bombed through negligence. Although, the United States did probably talk about what would happen to the people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they still bombed them knowing that many would die from the bomb or from the simptons of radiation. Evidence #2 describe the simptons of radiation, that many had to suffer through and/or die from. Dr. Tatsuichiro Akizuki had watch his patients die from the simptons, because even though they knew it was radiation poisoning, they did not know how to cure it.
    I do still believe that the United States did the right thing, in dropping the Atomic Bomb, but it probably was not a good idea to kill so many incocent civilians.

    ~Skye Carlson 8A

    ReplyDelete
  6. After reading Evidence #2 in this post, I recognize that the United States was not justified in using the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even though the United States was not bound to the agreement made by the League of Nations in Evidence #1, what they did was morally unimaginable. The United States purposely bombed cities and civilians to try and win the war. They barely even tried to bomb military bases. They may have wanted to just “end the war,” but they did it in way that caused unacceptable amounts of suffering the Japanese people. If the United States had just bombed the military bases on Nagasaki and Hiroshima with minimal harm to citizens, it would have been justified. However, the United States bomb cities and causes suffering to innocent Japanese civilians. (Evidence #2) Also, the United States was not close enough to bomb correctly, so they shouldn’t have experimented with it. (Evidence #1 of the 1st post)

    The United State’s bombing raids caused unnecessary death and destruction of Japanese society.

    -James

    ReplyDelete
  7. After reading Evidence #2 in this post, I recognize that the United States was not justified in using the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even though the United States was not bound to the agreement made by the League of Nations in Evidence #1, what they did was morally unimaginable. The United States purposely bombed cities and civilians to try and win the war. They barely even tried to bomb military bases. They may have wanted to just “end the war,” but they did it in way that caused unacceptable amounts of suffering the Japanese people. If the United States had just bombed the military bases on Nagasaki and Hiroshima with minimal harm to citizens, it would have been justified. However, the United States bombed cities and caused suffering to innocent Japanese civilians. (Evidence #2) Also, the United States was not close enough to bomb correctly, so they shouldn’t have experimented with it. (Evidence #1 of the 1st post)

    The United State’s bombing raids caused unnecessary death and destruction of Japanese society.

    -James Manship

    ReplyDelete
  8. Honestly, yes the bomb was absolutely unfair for the Japanese civilians. They did nothing to deserve the aftershocks of the atomic bomb, and having a moral conscience I want to say that the American were wrong for taking such drastic measures. However, as I previously stated war is war. Even though the American's actions were "illegal" they never officially joined the League of Nations. So, if we are in a fight, and you are not going to back down, then I'm just going to have to take you down. Maybe an approach that only harmed the army would have been better, but this one was an 100% effective method. I feel horrible for the children and innocent people that had to suffer, but from a military standpoint, I can see why the American's would have used the atomic bomb. It proved their strength.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with Justin, that i could not have put myself in Roosevelt's shoes and decide the turn out of the war. Though i still believe my first thoughts that with out the bomb the war could have gone on for longer causing even more deaths. Though this article did change my mind a little bit. Now I see how it was completely unfair for the innocent japanese citizens to have to suffer through an atomic bomb that would put the world out of its misery. My evidence is in article 1, it says it is illegal to harm another country and their civilians in such a way. Also you see how wrong the bomb was in Article 2, it said that of the people who did not die instantly from the bomb had extreme side affects such as radiation. So I am now on the fence on my decision. I believe in anyway the turn out was,if we dropped the bomb our not, one side would have not agreed with it and suffered.
    -Taylor

    ReplyDelete
  10. Both articles display just how horrible the whole incident was. To bomb thousands of innocent people is pure evil. Had I been incharge, I would have surely done nothing this drastic given that the entire idea is purely wrong,and I would not have had the heart to do something so cruel and evil. The first piece of evidence however, brings up a good point. The intentional bombing of the Japanese goes against national law. To counter this, one could argue, just as Tate did, that war is war. In war, rules are overlooked and life is taken for granted. The bombing of the Japanese was completely wrong, but given that war had been going on for such a long time partially because of the Japanese, I do still believe that America was justified to do what they did. It is unspeakably horrible to think that thousands of young, innocent children died of a slow, painful death, but the war needed to end. Bombing the Japanese was necessary and totally worth it given that it ended the war within three months.
    -Francesca (:

    ReplyDelete
  11. I still believe the bomb was necessary for the war to end. The atomic bomb dropped by the United States on Japan killed millions of civilians was illegal, but ended the war much sooner than it would have ended without the bomb being dropped. Tate had said, the japanese civilians did nothing to deserve the aftershocks of the atomic bomb which I disagree with. The Japanese military and civilians would not surrender or retreat no matter how long they fought. The Japanese were in the war to win it and the atomic bomb was the only was the U.S. could have won without several more years of fighting. President Truman dropped the bomb after being in office for only a couple months. Most people find that fishy, but he was a U.S. citizen experiencing the war and did not want it to go on any longer. This is the reason he dropped the bomb.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Even with these two peieces of evidence I would still have to stick my original opinion. Yes, it was extremely unfair for the Japanese who were not a part of the war to die, but it ended the war. If the United States had not dropped the bomb I think the war would have gone on for a lot longer. Overall I think that more people would have died if they did not drop the bomb. Also, if the bomb was not dropped people from both the United States and the Japanese would have died. Even though it killed many innocent people, and was technically illegal I think that the United States were completely justified in dropping the bomb. Obviously it would have been better if all of those people that were not part of the war did not have to die, but from my perspective it was worth it. The bomb was probably the only way that the Japanese would have given up. So yes, I think thr United States was justified in dropping the bomb.

    -Caitlin Hadjis

    ReplyDelete
  13. I would have to agree with Caitlin on this one. Although these two pieces of evidence are very strong I am sticking to my original opinion. The United States had asked for their surrender and the Japanese did not respond. If the Japanese had responded, they could have avoided the bombs but since they did not American had to come up with a plan. If they had sent troops in, the amount of casualties could have been even greater so dropping the bombs seemed like a more practical option for the UNITED STATES. Mind all of you that this is a war. This was not about saving all of the innocent people of Japan, it was about getting Japan to surrender with the least amount of casualties on the American side. My father always tells me "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." And I would like to apply this to the dropping of the bombs. If they had not dropped the bombs, Japan probably would have not surrender and millions of American soldiers would have died. This would not have benefited American so the most logical thing to do was to drop the bombs. This is why I am sticking with my original opinion that yes, the Untied States was justified in dropping the bomb.

    -Kennedy 8B

    ReplyDelete
  14. First off, it was not FDR in office when the bomb was dropped. He had died months before and his Vice President had taken control of the presidency. C'mon guys we learned this in history class. Now onto the question at hand, the evidence provided actually makes it necessary for the bomb to be dropped for the good of all. The aftermath in Hiroshima and Nagaski showed the world what a nuclear weapon could do. It showed how much misery and suffering could be brought on by two bombs. This scared America and The Soviet Union out of using nukes for the duration of the cold war. Even though these Japanese citizens suffered a similar fate would have a weighted them had a sustained bombing run occurred. Although not as quickly the allies would have eventually bombed the two cities due to them being large military producers. So even though it was very sad and destuctive, the bombing of these two cities was necessary for a larger group.

    ReplyDelete
  15. With the evidence in consideration, I stick to my opinion that the United States is righteous for dropping the atomic bomb. Although the United States went against international regulations of warfare, any action in war is not “civil” (Evidence #1). Despite many drawbacks and horrible deaths, the atomic bomb still saved lives in the end. If the U.S did not drop the bombs and the killing continued at the same rate, many more lives would have ended with an equal level of grotesque intensity (evidence #2). Yes, the civilians targeted were innocent, but what alternative did the U.S have? Never before in history has a nation fought to the death with such willingness and vigor as the Japanese. With all the major drawbacks that the bomb did have, the United States had no better alternative with the conditions in consideration.

    -Eric C.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Reading the effects of exposure to radiation was disturbing and sad. When the Americans dropped the bomb on the Japanese, I am sure they knew the severe consequences of their actions. This being said, although the death toll was extremely high and many innocent people died, i still believe that the Americans were right for using nuclear power to end the war. The Japanese would continue to fight to protect their homeland. More people would die in the end, and America might not have gained control of Japan to end the war. The risk of fighting and trying to get control of Japan to end the war with out a nuclear weapon was to great, and i am sure the Americans thought long and hard if the were making the right decision, knowing the consequences, and i believe they did.
    -bria

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, I think America did the right action by dropping the bomb. Although the aftermath was a lot to handle, it could have been worse if the fighting continued. Even though Japan was losing almost double the men as america did per battle, they were showing no sign of backing down. The war would have resulted in even more deaths if it did not end with the bomb. I think that America did not need to drop them on two different cities though, because that was just a cruel way to make japan suffer. Japan was asking for it though. They cant start a war with a country and expect them to not find a way to end it as fast as possible and with the least amount of deaths as possible. They just could not go around and attack america and expect them to do nothing back, so yes i think Japan deserved to get bombed because they started it. An eye for and eye.
    - BEN NEAL

    ReplyDelete
  18. I would have to stick to my original opinion, that the United States needed to end the war no matter what the costs were. The situation was terrible for the Japanese civilians that were not a part of the war that died in the atomic explosion. The children and mothers that had to experience and suffer from the bomb. Even if the United States did not drop the bomb, the war would've kept going on and more people would die. Bombing civilians is not a good intention, but it helped the war get over faster. Also the Japanese needed to realize that the US was not going to give up, trying to get the war over with. I do think that the United States were justified to use the bombs.
    - John Voorhees

    ReplyDelete
  19. I still think that America had the right to drop the bomb, because if we didn't drop the bomb the war would have been even deadlier. More soldiers would have died, and even the Japanese "Kamikaze", would have made it more difficult for America. The Japaneses had absolutely no plan of backing down from America and the war could, and would have gone on much longer than it did. It was still right to drop it because i would have took any solution to end this war as quick as possible, i wouldn't care if i had to drop a bomb, its still WAR. Even though civilians lost lives it was so America can show the JAPES that we have the upper hand.

    Rashad Smith/NA

    ReplyDelete
  20. Although the after effects of the bombs were horrific, America still had the right to drop the bomb. Japan had brainwashed their citizens basically, and they would fight on to the end. President Truman had to make a quick decision to keep the momentum in the American war effort. He knew that Japan wouldn't hesitate to drop it either. Even though hundreds of thousands of people died in the initial destruction and after, Truman's decision most likely saved millions of lives on both sides. Considering that many more cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been destroyed with an American invasion, this was the quickest and probably most humane way to bring Japan to it's knees.
    Patrick H

    ReplyDelete
  21. James Wood
    I believe it was horrible that the Americans dropped the A-bomb on the Japanese. But, this saved many Americans lives and the war would have last until the 1950’s which by then would cause us to possibly be in a depression again. That would be horrible for us because America had one 12 years ago. The Americans would have lost about 1,000,000 soldiers and 5,000,000 Japanese dead this would have been worse for the Japanese because only about 300,000 Japanese died which is awful but a lot worse than 5 million. Plus the Americans wrote to the Japanese saying “In 72 hours we will drop a bomb on your country’s major cities that can cause mass destruction. Evacuate now and surrender or the bomb will kill your people.” The Japanese thought this was a hoax and did not do what the Americans told them and they were wrong because we actually had a weapon of mass destruction. Actually it was Japans fault for not listening to our warning and didnt want to surrender. Even if we invaded the war would have lasted five years longer and many troops would die and maybe the whole Japanese population would have died off because eventually the Japanese would have forced women, children, and the elderly to fight the americans. Well for women being forced in the army would not be as terrible for children and the elderly. James Wood

    ReplyDelete