The debate over whether or not the americans should have dropped the atomic bomb in japan

You cannot convict someone of rape on eyewitness accounts alone. In addition, the Dachau massacre, and the Cainicatti massacres did not involve the Pacific war. This nullifies you argument about the Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State case, because its decision was partially based on rules that were never formally adopted.

The debate over whether or not the americans should have dropped the atomic bomb in japan

Support[ edit ] Would prevent many U. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives.

Two landings were planned: March 's Operation Coronet was planned to take Tokyo with a landing of 25 divisionscompared to D-Day's 12 divisions. Those who argue in favor of the decision to drop the atomic bombs on enemy targets believe massive casualties on both sides would have occurred in Operation Downfallthe planned Allied invasion of Japan.

Truman stated in he had been advised U. As Bard opposed using the bomb without warning Japan first, he cannot be accused of exaggerating casualty expectations to justify the bomb's use, and his account is evidence that Truman was aware of, and government officials discussed, the possibility of one million casualties.

A review of documents from the Truman Library shows Truman's initial draft response to the query describes Marshall only as saying "one quarter of a million would be the minimum".

The "as much as a million" phrase was added to the final draft by Truman's staff, so as not to appear to contradict an earlier statement given in a published article by Stimson former Secretary of War. This implied the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.

Delivered on June 15,after insight gained from the Battle of Okinawathe study noted Japan's inadequate defenses resulting from a very effective sea blockade and the Allied firebombing campaign.

Contemporary estimates of Japanese deaths from an invasion of the Home Islands range from several hundreds of thousands to as high as ten million.

The debate over whether or not the americans should have dropped the atomic bomb in japan

General MacArthur's staff provided an estimated range of American deaths depending on the duration of the invasion, and also estimated a From this, a low figure of somewhat more thanJapanese deaths can be calculated for a short invasion of two weeks, and almost three million Japanese deaths if the fighting lasted four months.

McCloywho characterized it as conservative. Of the 22, Japanese combatants entrenched on Iwo Jima, 21, died either from fighting or by ritual suicide. According to the official Navy Department Library website, "The day Iwo Jima assault resulted in more than 26, American casualties, including 6, dead" with 19, wounded.

To date, all American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Warshave not exceeded that number.

Inthere were stillof these Purple Heart medals in stock.

For the other Asian states alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater innotably due to the mass death in a famine in Vietnam. Newman concluded that each month that the war continued in would have produced the deaths of 'upwards ofpeople, mostly Asian but some Westerners.

In the Dutch East Indiesthere was a "forced mobilization of some 4 million—although some estimates are as high as 10 million—romusha manual laborers Aboutromusha were sent to the Outer Islands and Japanese-held territories in Southeast Asia, where they joined other Asians in performing wartime construction projects.

At the end of the war, only 52, were repatriated to Java.

The debate over whether or not the americans should have dropped the atomic bomb in japan

Because the United States Army Air Forces wanted to use its fission bombs on previously undamaged cities in order to have accurate data on nuclear-caused damage, KokuraHiroshimaNagasakiand Niigata were preserved from conventional bombing raids.

Otherwise, they would all have been firebombed. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria had, in the week before the surrender, caused over 80, deaths. If the atomic bomb had not been used, evidence like that I have cited points to the practical certainty that there would have been many more months of death and destruction on an enormous scale.

If a means is justified by an end, the use of the atomic bomb was justified for it brought Japan to her knees and ended the horrible war.

If the war had gone longer, without the use of the atomic bomb, how many thousands and thousands of helpless men, women and children would have needlessly died and suffered? Genghis Khan and his hordes could not have been more merciless. I have no doubts about whether the two atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary.

Without them, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Malaya and Singapore, and millions in Japan itself, would have perished. Lee witnessed his home city being invaded by the Japanese and was nearly executed in the Sook Ching Massacre.

In addition, the dropping of high explosives with precision bombing was unable to penetrate Japan's dispersed industry, making it entirely impossible to destroy them without causing widespread damage to surrounding areas. We were going after military targets.

No point in slaughtering civilians for the mere sake of slaughter. Of course there is a pretty thin veneer in Japan, but the veneer was there.

It was their system of dispersal of industry. All you had to do was visit one of those targets after we'd roasted it, and see the ruins of a multitude of houses, with a drill press sticking up through the wreckage of every home. The entire population got into the act and worked to make those airplanes or munitions of war We knew we were going to kill a lot of women and kids when we burned [a] town.whether they think the bomb should have been dropped, and why they think that way.

Recent Opinions

Teacher will be prepared to play devil’s advocate in case the students are all leaning one way. Opponents contend, among other arguments, that the bombings were unnecessary to win the war or that they constituted a war crime or genocide.

Whether the atomic bombings truly forced the Japanese surrender, and whether projected casualty rates for the Japanese invasion were accurate, have been controversial issues for historians to tackle.

Through research and debate, this lesson will allow students to examine the reasons the bomb was made and used, and to determine its long-term effects. 1. Begin by using the following questions to examine the image Nagasaki Mushroom Cloud.

• This is a photo of the atomic bomb blast over Nagasaki, Japan. I feel the US should have/was justified in dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan. These are the terms of conduct expected in this debate.

If you do not wish to and/or do not intend to follow them please refrain from participating. Exploding directly over a city of ,, the bomb vaporized over 70, people instantly and caused fires over two miles away. Two days later, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan.

On August 9, a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, where 80, Japanese people perished. But this decline in American support for the use of atomic bombs against Japanese cities did not mean Americans thought they had to apologize for having done so.

In that same Gallup survey, 73% said the U.S. should not formally apologize to Japan for the atom bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Should the U.S. have dropped the atomic bomb? | leslutinsduphoenix.com