because of heavy bombing, plus the navy controlling the waters around Japan, the Japanese would have had to surrender anyways, because the United States would starve them out. The US Air Force published a survey that concluded that Japan was almost ready to surrender, and would have surrendered without an invasion or an A-bomb (or two) being dropped.
Japanese didn't want to surrender, but their emperor made them and he was seen as a god. Since the Japanese never want to surrender, this shows how bad the destruction actually was.
The atomic bombing of Japan by the United States gives present-day, militaristic countries an excuse to build nuclear weapons. These countries can say that they need nuclear weapoons to defend their country in war just as the U.S. did in WWII.
the atomic bomb seemed to be a faster way to end the war. It was pretty much unecessary since we already defeated their navy and started using bombs that weren't atomic.
Both bombs were dropped w/o any fair warning to the millions of innocent bystandards in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They weren't the ones who deserved the devistation.
U.S. bombings of military targets and the blockade that cut off Japan's supply lines were crippling enough to the livelihood of Japan that a surrender could have been established. Japan had even attempted to send a message through the Soviets to the U.S. to open up peace talks, but the soviets had invaded Japenese controlled Manchuira and had declared war on Japan. The U.S. did not just want Japan to surrender to them unconditionally they wanted to cripple the Japenese to the point where they could not sustain themselves or rebuild on their own. The U.S. and the Soviets were both in a land race for control of the asian countries and the U.S. wanted Japan before the Soviets could get to it. We devestateed Hiroshima and Nagisaki so that we could have a hand in rebuilding it and Japan to fit our own needs. We created the constitutional monarchy that replaced their militaristic dictatorship.
the japanese would have eventually surrendered without the use of atomic bombs by americans. all the bombs did was kill thousands of innocent people and affect future generations. -julianna
United States had a blockade around Phillipiness, which was a great source of oil for Japan. Japan needed oil inorder to attack(or take over) other countries. U.S. would have starved Japan out of oil, and Japan would not have taken over other countries. -Nimmi Bhatt
"After okinawa was the deadliest Pacific war battle, americans had lost nearly 500,000 soldiers, so they needed a way to destroy Japan and end the war with out losing any more american soldiers"
This is what Wil said on the PRO blog. He is implying that American lives are more valuable than Japanese lives, which is rascist and prejudist. You can win a war without completely destroying a country. War is a policy and the only people responsible are those in the military. True, those at the home front worked to provide supplies, but they were subject to propaganda and didn't know the whole story. Innocent civilians are not responsible and should not be punished for what army generals decided to do.
International Humanitarian Law as seen in the Geneva Conventions states that "In order to spare the civilian population, armed forces shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and civilian objects on the one hand, and military objectives on the other. Neither the civilian population as such nor individual civilians or civilian objects shall be the target of military attacks." The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki breaks this law and therefore Truman should have been tried of war crimes.
People in the "PRO" section are saying that the atomic bombs prevented America from preforming a land invasion which would have killed innocent civilians. Then they say that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented further killings of civilians. That makes no sense seeing how the atomic bomb killed over 140,000 people. If there were to have been a land invasion, not as many civilians would have been killed. More Americans would have been killed but who's to say that the Americans who would've died are better than the 140,000 Japanese that did die. The American government could have shown what happened when they did the testing of the atomic bomb to Japan, preformed a small land invasion without unnecessary killings, and threatened that if Japan did not surrender, they would be bombed. It is inhumane to torture an American or a Japanese and it is also inhumane to directly resort to the extreme bombing of innocent men, women, and children.
"They will kill you. I've known it from the beginning and you've known it too for a long time, even if no one else in Guellen wants to admit it. The temptation is too great and our poverty is too wretched. But I know something else. I shall take part in it. I can feel myself slowly becoming a murderer. My faith in humanity is powerless to stop it. And because I know this, I have also become a sot. I too am scared, Ill, just as you have been scared. And finally I know that one day an old lady will come for us too, and then what happened to you with also happen to us, but soon, perhaps in a few hours, I shall have lost that knowledge." - Durrenmatt
the dropping of the atomic bombs in hiroshima and nagasaki combined killed about 140,000 people instantly. in 2003, the popultion of pasadena, california was 141,114.
so everyone on the pro side is talking about how the japanese refused to surrender but they refused to surrender because the allies would not let them keep their imperial rule and i agree with em when she mentions how everyone is talking about saving american lives but nobody really mentions the fact that the people living in hiroshima and nagasaki had no idea what was going to happen
It is impossible to judge whether the taking of civilian lives is considered moral if the civilians are fanatic in their idealologies and beliefs to the point where suicide (kamakazi and carbombings) is considered acceptible or honorable. Whether or not the civilians of japan would have resorted to this if the U. S. invaded is a question we will never know but it is an interesting thought.
Remember that this is an academic debate and that in such an exercise we use proper language with no racial slurs...such as "Japs". Thank you. I am enjoying your comments.
radiation affects can last for about a month after the bombing. includes: -purple spots on skin -hair loss -nausea/vomiting -bleeding from mouth, gums, throat -dissfiguring radiation burns -killed or permanently damaged fetuses -golzar
The only reason the Japanese did not surrender before the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on them was because in the Postdam Treaty which America wrote to give the terms of their surrender, the US was very unclear about the fate of their emperor. The Japanese believed their emperor to be a god, and were willing to sacrifice their own lives for his sake.
President Truman knew the Emperor wanted to end the war because of decoding machines the U.S.had. The messages form Togo to Sato clearly stated their desire to terminate the war yet the U.S. dropped the bombs anyway to ensure the lives of thousands of Americans while in reality it killed hundreds of thousands of innocent japanese. -julianna
When America issued the Potsam Proclamation, it demanded "there must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and mislead the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest." This and several other quotations left the Japanese wary of the future of their emperor -- this was the primary objection of the Japanese government to the proclamation. At this point in the war, the Japanese government was well aware that Japan was not capable of defeating the invading Soviets and indomitable Americans. With this in mind, the Japanese would have most likely succumbed to the terms of surrender if some assurance was placed upon the protection of the emperor's position. However, with the emperor threatened, the heart of a nation was threatened, and the people were willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their faith, not unlike the ancient crusades over Jerusalem, where millions of soldiers entered battle knowing their lives would most likely be lost for the noble cause of their religion. In essence, by threatening the emperor, the American's were threatening the religion of the Japanese, and this is no means of convincing an empire to surrender. On August 11, two days after the atomic bomb on Nagasaki was dropped, not to mention the Hiroshima bomb and the invasion of Manchuria by the war-industrialized Soviets, the Japanese Supreme council for the Direction of the War and the Japanese cabinet voted against surrender. Their key concern was the loss of honor, not the destruction and devastation of their people. These politicians were planning on ruining their nation for the sake of pride, and yet the American government was targeting innocent civilians instead of those in power. Luckily for the U.S., the emperor, said to be fearing for his life, advised the cabinet to surrender and they immediately obeyed. If it had not been for this circumstance, it most likely wouldn't have mattered how many bombs were dropped and cities ravaged; the Japanese government would have remained steadfast in its decision to never surrender. By cutting off the island's resources and revising the Potsam Proclamation to simply allow the Japanese emperor to remain an idolized figure, like the queen of England, the barbaric dropping of the atomic bombs would not have been necessary. Finally, I wonder why the American government chose to target densely populated cities instead of industrial factories or military bases. One atomic bomb would have been capable of decimating the entire Japanese naval fleet. It may have been deemed easier and more severe to target the cities, but as Emily stated earlier, this is a crime against humanity. Imagine if in every war, instead of fighting soldier against soldier, countries just dropped atomic bombs on major cities like San Francisco to determine which country could hold out longer. There is no justification for such an act.
Patricia S. said the following in the pro atomic bomb section "It was right for the Americans to bomb Japan. The Japanese had done great atrocities during their creation of their Empire. They had forced many civilians to do what they wanted. Many had died, over hundred and thousands, under the Japanese rule. Rather than leave alone their prisoners that they had captured from war, they tortured them in gruesome ways."
When she says "they", she is referring to the Japanese soldiers, who were callused and trained to be brutal. Yes, "they" committed unspeakable atrocities. However, the women, children, and elders primarily inhabiting the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima committed no war crimes. Yet these people were the victims of the atomic bombings. Japan performed mass slaughter of innocent civilians in China; the atomic bombs were only a means of inflicting the same type of damage in an efficient manner. Whether it was intended by the American government or not, the atomic bombings also inflicted the same degree of torture and suffering as the Japanese tactics. Carving out a women's fetus with a sword is pure torture; so is being buried alive and radiation.
General Douglas MacArthur’s army headquarters in the Philippines, for example, had calculated that the maximum number of dead in the event of an invasion would be around 47,000.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir, The White House Years: "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki killed an approximate 140,000 civilians. Out of those who survived, a least 100,000 of the victims suffered from raditon and died slow and unpleasent deaths.
Well, being absent from class on Friday, I decided to pick a side.
The people commenting on the "Pro-atomic bomb" post have made a couple valid points. One of which being a swift and expediant end to a war that could have lasted much longer.
200,000 dead on one hand; possible a million or more on the other... It really depends on what you find to be more unethical: the instant death of a fairly large populace, or the slaughter of a myriad more as the US invaded Japan in a land assualt against extremely nationalistic Japanese citizens.
While those arguments are well and good, I think the issue is on a much larger scale, as Elizabeth said earlier:
"The atomic bombing of Japan by the United States gives present-day, militaristic countries an excuse to build nuclear weapons. These countries can say that they need nuclear weapoons to defend their country in war just as the U.S. did in WWII."
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki catapulted the superpowers of the world into the nuclear age. Along with that, global politics evolved to fit the new kind of warfare countries were capable.
The Cold War was essentially a stand-off (unless I am rather mistaken) between the U.S.S.R and the USA in which both sides had the nuclear power to (pardon my colloquialisms) nuke the crap out of the world. This war was started in part by Soviet mistrust of the US durn and after the atomic bombings.
"One week after the Potsdam Conference ended, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki added to Soviet distrust of the United States. Shortly following the attacks, Stalin protested to U.S. officials when Truman offered the Soviets little real influence in occupied Japan."
With the advent of nuclear weapons, the whole world could have erupted into bedlam, and though it did not, the effects of the two atomic bombings were felt in World Politics years later.
~Travis T.
Mr. Ballou:
Is there a way to change your blog such that things such as image/audio links can work in comments? The post-a-comment box kept telling me I was using invalid HTML code...
Americans had a right to be terrified and disgusted with Japan's torturous war crimes ,yet they had no right at all to turn around and commit a far worse offense upon the Japanese. There is no logic in disagreeing only when it affects your own people.The atomic bomb was a form of torture cruelly instigated by the American government to harm the innicent and kill.
The United States gave Japan the option to surrender, but they repeatedly refused, even when threatened with the atomic bombings. Secondly, the U.S passed over the possible targets of Tokyo and Osaka, two very important cities to the country, choosing instead to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Far more people could have died if Truman had decided to bomb the major cities. Also apparently people don't know how to spell innocent but there is actually only one "i".
I have come to the conclusion that that the reason we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessarily to cause mass death and destruction to the lives of Japenese citizens but was to cripple their economy and destroy their will to fight so that they would willingly accept our help while rebuilding their government and economy. I stated earlier how we were in a competition with the Soviets for control over the Asian countries but now I realize that if we had not dropped the bomb or if we had merely had them surrender and then pulled out never lending them aid or moving in to shape their government, (which they probobly would not have let us done if they were not so desperate and demmoralized), Russia would have alligned themselves with Japan and numerous other countries using us as a common enemy. This also may have led to an open conflict between us and the red army in the Cold War rather than the subversive and underground conflict which is charicterized with that war.
Amanda N. said... The devastating effects of both kinds of bombs depended essentially upon the energy released at the moment of the explosion, causing immediate fires, destructive blast pressures, and extreme local radiation exposures.
It is the Official Us Strategic Bombing survey's opinion that the Japanese would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped , even if Russia hadn't entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned.
Admiral William D. LEAHY- Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman:
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.
The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.
The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.
A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.
Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.
the decision of president truman to drop the a-bombs on japan was influenced by people in the state department. these men were not aware of the importance of the role of the emperor in japanese society. so these men thought that it would not be neccessary to keep some sort of monarchy in japan and called for an unconditional surrender. japan saw this as a threat to their god and emperor. this gave the japanese reason to fight until there anialation, in order to honorably protect their god; even though japan was blocked from the air and the sea, and there infrastructure was slowly being bombed away. had the U.S. called for a surrender in which japan had a constitutional monarchy inwhich the emperor could still rule in the potsdam proclamation, japan may have surrendered. this would have prevented the use of the a-bombs and the extermination of so many innocent lives -conor d
It is estimated that nealy 140,000 peaople in Hiroshima and 74, 000 in Nagasaki were killed by the bomb. In both cities, the majority of people who died were innocent civilians who had nothing no say in military decisions. The bombing was unnecessary. There were many other ways to get Japan to surrender without so many innocent people dying. Japan was essentially defeated and so close to surrender that the bombing was unnecessarily drastic. "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - The United States Strategic Bombing Survey -Netta
Marvin Fletcher, a WWII Historian, says concerning the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, "A few more days might have given the Japanese government more of a chance to consider the idea of surrender." -Drea
The dropping of "Little Boy" on Hiroshima distroyed about two thirds of the city. Within a three mile distance, approximatly 60,000 to 90,000 buildings and homes were distroyed.
bombings. Secondly, the U.S passed over the possible targets of Tokyo and Osaka, two very important cities to the country, choosing instead to bomb
So apparently some people think that when you write "U.S." there is no need for a period after the "s" wow, go back to pre-school. oh and so apparently some people dont know how to type and think that there is so space after a period starting a new sentence.
The dropping of the atomic bomb created lasting effects. Even today there is still radiation left over from the explosion that is spread throughout the world from blowning winds. You would be upset too if you all of a sudden dropped dead because you accidentally inhaled the radioative particles in the air.
There has been too many posts about the number of deaths and the number of homes and buildings destroyed by the bombs and I think that rather than restating similar facts over and over again, ( I have seen over four posts stating how many people died in Hiroshima nad Nagasaki. Each with different numbers), and focus more on the political reasoning that led to the bombings and the reprocussions that followed, (excluding the death toll).
People on the PRO side are saying that they had to drop the bombs because it was the only way to end the war, but as Nina said, it was not the atomic bombs that caused the Japanese to surrender, so it was a completely fruitless of the Allies to drop the bombs. I'm not sure if I or someone else said this already, but to the Allies, the one of the worst things was to lose innocent lives. For the Japanese, it was terrible to surrender dishonorably. The Allies imposed their morals on the Japanese and bombed the life out of 140,000 innocent civilians. Unfortunately, the Japanese weren't discouraged terribly since obviously that wasn't cause enough to surrender. If the Allies knew anything about their enemy the Japanese, they would have tried to hit them where it hurts in a manner of speaking for what the Japanese held to be a terrible loss.
the drastic measures taken by president truman were not neccessary; it was mostly a vengeful action following the bombing of pearl harbor.
the allies' purpose was to end the war abruptly, and rebuild wit a fresh government. but the radiation is still hazardous in hiroshima and nagasaki. ultimately, the bomb was not needed, the United States's victory was on the horizon anyway.
GET ME A CHICKEN SANDWICH AND SOME WAFFLE FRIES!!!!!!
Japanese-Americans internment camps link was a legit unbiased website discussing factors leading up to the atomic bombing including dates and numbers..emotional/social viewpoint--would be good for your argument spence&julianna.
The allies didn't impose anything on the Japanese just an unconditional surrender to stop the torturing of POWs, the killing of troops on both sides, and civilians. Also the death of 140,000 of Japanese civilians might be hitting where it hurts and a loss. Not much was a terrible loss to a imperial government that was almost unwilling to surrender. Also Ballou said that the purpose of the Atomic bombs was solely to kill, but that is entirely and completely incorrect. The purpose of the Atomic bombs was for a Japanese surrender which in turn led to the saving of many thousand lives.
The americans should have found a better way to end WWII because the impact from such boming has lasted a long time. The repercussions from the bombing are still in effect and the Japonese are still suffering from the destruction. The mental impact from the amount of people that were lost was grave. Some effects that lasted through generations were ratiation poisoning and cancer.
a good site about the repercussions is http://artsci.wustl.edu/~copeland/atomicbomb.html
by dropping the bomb we prevented overpopulation in the world; hippies should be thankful we dropped the bomb because it gave them something else to protest about; Hippies say that the U.S. wasn't justified, well were the Japanese justified to drop all there bombs, all we did was drop TWO bombs, Two very big ones; Hippies are an infestation in the US they should be glad we dropped the bombs on the japanese instead of them.
^ that site lists all the ships in the naval fleet from 1941-1945, describes every sea battle, tells statistics, & even has biographies of admirals on either side of the war.
killed millions of innocent people and was unneccessary because japans emperor surrendered in the end anyway. the bomb introduced new ways of killing to future generations and now every country in the world knows how to create a "weapon of mass destruction" not that its legit to quote bush..
the atomic bomb was supposed to save the amount of lives lost if the war dragged on, yet it ended up killing an immense amount, much more that expected JUSTINE SAID
I've looked at the vedio of the aftermath in the areas of bombed cities, and I saw pictures of a baby without his skin, it was a disaster. People's eye balls melted when when looked to the way where the bomb is exploded. People with their legs or hands torn off. It was a total chaos! Let's not talk about how many people died, but let's consider one person's pain, with their skin torn off, eye balls melted, and of course radiations killed alot more, those sufferings were created by us. AND US is still making 100x powerful than atomic bombs.Just like what he said in the Spider man movie:"with great powers, bears great responsibilities!"
Just watched a Discover Channel program - they are not puppets of the US government right?, if you think that, then there is little value in reading on. THE JAPANESE HAD AN ATOMIC BOMB PROGRAM and DID SUCCESSFULLY DETONATE AN ATOMIC BOMB. A possible scenario was to put such a bomb in a submarine and DETONATE IT IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. You don't want to believe it, you were taught to believe the US is evil (if you were raised here) but open your mind to the possibility. Also, Google a search regarding the 9,000 balloons sent from Japan to the US to cause forest fires. Read how Japan attacked Alaska (didn't even know, right? It's not taught in US schools...). Educate yourself and stop being so naive!
the atomic bombs that were used to kill over 200.000 people were used to show the U.S.S.R and the rest of the world what America was capable of not to try and end the war this is why they choose the two cities that had virtually no previous bombings (hiroshima and nagasaki)
Of course it killed people, what do you think war is? There must be death and tragedy or no one's opinion will be changed.
Also, Japan would not have surrendered ANY time soon whatsoever. No more than two weeks before the bombings had Japan refused to surrender in the "Potsdam Declaration" What difference would two weeks make? They had no intent of surrendering at all.
And one more point. Like stated earlier, people would have died either way; however, had we not bombed them, we would have ended up performing a mainland invasion, which was predicted to end up with upwards of 500,000 deaths total, more than 350,000 more than actually ended up dying from the bombings. These 500,000 would have been AMERICANS included. Our president was looking out for our country and our citizens.
I keep coming to this website[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url]You have really contiributed very good info here mrballou.blogspot.com. Let me tell you one thing guys, some time we really forget to pay attention towards our health. Let me show you one truth. Recent Scientific Research displays that closely 60% of all USA adults are either fat or overweight[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url] So if you're one of these individuals, you're not alone. Infact many among us need to lose 10 to 20 lbs once in a while to get sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now next question is how you can achive quick weight loss? [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss[/url] is really not as tough as you think. Some improvement in of daily activity can help us in losing weight quickly.
About me: I am author of [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also mentor who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under difficult training program than you may also try [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/acai-berry-for-quick-weight-loss]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/colon-cleanse-for-weight-loss]Colon Cleansing[/url] for effortless weight loss.
82 comments:
killed over 200,000 people
over 100,00 people in Japan were left with radiation poisoning and died slow and painful deaths.
-Kim
Ongoing radiation to future generations
Mr.Ballou
The bomb was not effective at stopping war production. It's purpose was only to kill.
because of heavy bombing, plus the navy controlling the waters around Japan, the Japanese would have had to surrender anyways, because the United States would starve them out. The US Air Force published a survey that concluded that Japan was almost ready to surrender, and would have surrendered without an invasion or an A-bomb (or two) being dropped.
Japanese didn't want to surrender, but their emperor made them and he was seen as a god. Since the Japanese never want to surrender, this shows how bad the destruction actually was.
-Amanda N.
Tess said...
Japan didn't want to surrender because they didn't want their emperor to be killed.
Innicent people that had done nothing to americans were killed.
-Jake S.
Elizabeth said...
The atomic bombing of Japan by the United States gives present-day, militaristic countries an excuse to build nuclear weapons. These countries can say that they need nuclear weapoons to defend their country in war just as the U.S. did in WWII.
the atomic bomb seemed to be a faster way to end the war. It was pretty much unecessary since we already defeated their navy and started using bombs that weren't atomic.
-tyler
Both bombs were dropped w/o any fair warning to the millions of innocent bystandards in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They weren't the ones who deserved the devistation.
~Andrew
bombs killed more innocent lives than japanese soldiers
said conor d
U.S. bombings of military targets and the blockade that cut off Japan's supply lines were crippling enough to the livelihood of Japan that a surrender could have been established. Japan had even attempted to send a message through the Soviets to the U.S. to open up peace talks, but the soviets had invaded Japenese controlled Manchuira and had declared war on Japan. The U.S. did not just want Japan to surrender to them unconditionally they wanted to cripple the Japenese to the point where they could not sustain themselves or rebuild on their own. The U.S. and the Soviets were both in a land race for control of the asian countries and the U.S. wanted Japan before the Soviets could get to it. We devestateed Hiroshima and Nagisaki so that we could have a hand in rebuilding it and Japan to fit our own needs. We created the constitutional monarchy that replaced their militaristic dictatorship.
the japanese would have eventually surrendered without the use of atomic bombs by americans. all the bombs did was kill thousands of innocent people and affect future generations.
-julianna
United States had a blockade around Phillipiness, which was a great source of oil for Japan. Japan needed oil inorder to attack(or take over) other countries. U.S. would have starved Japan out of oil, and Japan would not have taken over other countries.
-Nimmi Bhatt
"After okinawa was the deadliest Pacific war battle, americans had lost nearly 500,000 soldiers, so they needed a way to destroy Japan and end the war with out losing any more american soldiers"
This is what Wil said on the PRO blog. He is implying that American lives are more valuable than Japanese lives, which is rascist and prejudist. You can win a war without completely destroying a country. War is a policy and the only people responsible are those in the military. True, those at the home front worked to provide supplies, but they were subject to propaganda and didn't know the whole story. Innocent civilians are not responsible and should not be punished for what army generals decided to do.
International Humanitarian Law as seen in the Geneva Conventions states that "In order to spare the civilian population, armed forces shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and civilian objects on the one hand, and military objectives on the other. Neither the civilian population as such nor individual civilians or civilian objects shall be the target of military attacks." The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki breaks this law and therefore Truman should have been tried of war crimes.
-Emily
People in the "PRO" section are saying that the atomic bombs prevented America from preforming a land invasion which would have killed innocent civilians. Then they say that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented further killings of civilians. That makes no sense seeing how the atomic bomb killed over 140,000 people. If there were to have been a land invasion, not as many civilians would have been killed. More Americans would have been killed but who's to say that the Americans who would've died are better than the 140,000 Japanese that did die. The American government could have shown what happened when they did the testing of the atomic bomb to Japan, preformed a small land invasion without unnecessary killings, and threatened that if Japan did not surrender, they would be bombed. It is inhumane to torture an American or a Japanese and it is also inhumane to directly resort to the extreme bombing of innocent men, women, and children.
"They will kill you. I've known it from the beginning and you've known it too for a long time, even if no one else in Guellen wants to admit it. The temptation is too great and our poverty is too wretched. But I know something else. I shall take part in it. I can feel myself slowly becoming a murderer. My faith in humanity is powerless to stop it. And because I know this, I have also become a sot. I too am scared, Ill, just as you have been scared. And finally I know that one day an old lady will come for us too, and then what happened to you with also happen to us, but soon, perhaps in a few hours, I shall have lost that knowledge." - Durrenmatt
Sorry I just feel like this was fitting somehow.
-Emily Schuster
the dropping of the atomic bombs in hiroshima and nagasaki combined killed about 140,000 people instantly. in 2003, the popultion of pasadena, california was 141,114.
so everyone on the pro side is talking about how the japanese refused to surrender but they refused to surrender because the allies would not let them keep their imperial rule and i agree with em when she mentions how everyone is talking about saving american lives but nobody really mentions the fact that the people living in hiroshima and nagasaki had no idea what was going to happen
It is impossible to judge whether the taking of civilian lives is considered moral if the civilians are fanatic in their idealologies and beliefs to the point where suicide (kamakazi and carbombings) is considered acceptible or honorable. Whether or not the civilians of japan would have resorted to this if the U. S. invaded is a question we will never know but it is an interesting thought.
Remember that this is an academic debate and that in such an exercise we use proper language with no racial slurs...such as "Japs". Thank you. I am enjoying your comments.
radiation affects can last for about a month after the bombing. includes:
-purple spots on skin
-hair loss
-nausea/vomiting
-bleeding from mouth, gums, throat
-dissfiguring radiation burns
-killed or permanently damaged fetuses
-golzar
haha just wanted to point out that my name looks like an effect of radiation...
and i meant the radiation EFFECTS can last for about a month...
golzar
The only reason the Japanese did not surrender before the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on them was because in the Postdam Treaty which America wrote to give the terms of their surrender, the US was very unclear about the fate of their emperor. The Japanese believed their emperor to be a god, and were willing to sacrifice their own lives for his sake.
President Truman knew the Emperor wanted to end the war because of decoding machines the U.S.had. The messages form Togo to Sato clearly stated their desire to terminate the war yet the U.S. dropped the bombs anyway to ensure the lives of thousands of Americans while in reality it killed hundreds of thousands of innocent japanese.
-julianna
When America issued the Potsam Proclamation, it demanded "there must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and mislead the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest." This and several other quotations left the Japanese wary of the future of their emperor -- this was the primary objection of the Japanese government to the proclamation. At this point in the war, the Japanese government was well aware that Japan was not capable of defeating the invading Soviets and indomitable Americans. With this in mind, the Japanese would have most likely succumbed to the terms of surrender if some assurance was placed upon the protection of the emperor's position. However, with the emperor threatened, the heart of a nation was threatened, and the people were willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their faith, not unlike the ancient crusades over Jerusalem, where millions of soldiers entered battle knowing their lives would most likely be lost for the noble cause of their religion. In essence, by threatening the emperor, the American's were threatening the religion of the Japanese, and this is no means of convincing an empire to surrender.
On August 11, two days after the atomic bomb on Nagasaki was dropped, not to mention the Hiroshima bomb and the invasion of Manchuria by the war-industrialized Soviets, the Japanese Supreme council for the Direction of the War and the Japanese cabinet voted against surrender. Their key concern was the loss of honor, not the destruction and devastation of their people. These politicians were planning on ruining their nation for the sake of pride, and yet the American government was targeting innocent civilians instead of those in power. Luckily for the U.S., the emperor, said to be fearing for his life, advised the cabinet to surrender and they immediately obeyed. If it had not been for this circumstance, it most likely wouldn't have mattered how many bombs were dropped and cities ravaged; the Japanese government would have remained steadfast in its decision to never surrender.
By cutting off the island's resources and revising the Potsam Proclamation to simply allow the Japanese emperor to remain an idolized figure, like the queen of England, the barbaric dropping of the atomic bombs would not have been necessary.
Finally, I wonder why the American government chose to target densely populated cities instead of industrial factories or military bases. One atomic bomb would have been capable of decimating the entire Japanese naval fleet. It may have been deemed easier and more severe to target the cities, but as Emily stated earlier, this is a crime against humanity. Imagine if in every war, instead of fighting soldier against soldier, countries just dropped atomic bombs on major cities like San Francisco to determine which country could hold out longer. There is no justification for such an act.
Patricia S. said the following in the pro atomic bomb section
"It was right for the Americans to bomb Japan. The Japanese had done great atrocities during their creation of their Empire. They had forced many civilians to do what they wanted. Many had died, over hundred and thousands, under the Japanese rule. Rather than leave alone their prisoners that they had captured from war, they tortured them in gruesome ways."
When she says "they", she is referring to the Japanese soldiers, who were callused and trained to be brutal. Yes, "they" committed unspeakable atrocities. However, the women, children, and elders primarily inhabiting the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima committed no war crimes. Yet these people were the victims of the atomic bombings. Japan performed mass slaughter of innocent civilians in China; the atomic bombs were only a means of inflicting the same type of damage in an efficient manner. Whether it was intended by the American government or not, the atomic bombings also inflicted the same degree of torture and suffering as the Japanese tactics. Carving out a women's fetus with a sword is pure torture; so is being buried alive and radiation.
hippies suck
General Douglas MacArthur’s army headquarters in the Philippines, for example, had calculated that the maximum number of dead in the event of an invasion would be around 47,000.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir, The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
-golzar
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki killed an approximate 140,000 civilians. Out of those who survived, a least 100,000 of the victims suffered from raditon and died slow and unpleasent deaths.
~Andrew
Well, being absent from class on Friday, I decided to pick a side.
The people commenting on the "Pro-atomic bomb" post have made a couple valid points. One of which being a swift and expediant end to a war that could have lasted much longer.
200,000 dead on one hand; possible a million or more on the other... It really depends on what you find to be more unethical: the instant death of a fairly large populace, or the slaughter of a myriad more as the US invaded Japan in a land assualt against extremely nationalistic Japanese citizens.
While those arguments are well and good, I think the issue is on a much larger scale, as Elizabeth said earlier:
"The atomic bombing of Japan by the United States gives present-day, militaristic countries an excuse to build nuclear weapons. These countries can say that they need nuclear weapoons to defend their country in war just as the U.S. did in WWII."
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki catapulted the superpowers of the world into the nuclear age. Along with that, global politics evolved to fit the new kind of warfare countries were capable.
The Cold War was essentially a stand-off (unless I am rather mistaken) between the U.S.S.R and the USA in which both sides had the nuclear power to (pardon my colloquialisms) nuke the crap out of the world. This war was started in part by Soviet mistrust of the US durn and after the atomic bombings.
I quote from Walter LaFeber in his book "Cold War.":
"One week after the Potsdam Conference ended, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki added to Soviet distrust of the United States. Shortly following the attacks, Stalin protested to U.S. officials when Truman offered the Soviets little real influence in occupied Japan."
With the advent of nuclear weapons, the whole world could have erupted into bedlam, and though it did not, the effects of the two atomic bombings were felt in World Politics years later.
~Travis T.
Mr. Ballou:
Is there a way to change your blog such that things such as image/audio links can work in comments? The post-a-comment box kept telling me I was using invalid HTML code...
Americans had a right to be terrified and disgusted with Japan's torturous war crimes ,yet they had no right at all to turn around and commit a far worse offense upon the Japanese. There is no logic in disagreeing only when it affects your own people.The atomic bomb was a form of torture cruelly instigated by the American government to harm the innicent and kill.
The United States gave Japan the option to surrender, but they repeatedly refused, even when threatened with the atomic bombings. Secondly, the U.S passed over the possible targets of Tokyo and Osaka, two very important cities to the country, choosing instead to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Far more people could have died if Truman had decided to bomb the major cities. Also apparently people don't know how to spell innocent but there is actually only one "i".
I have come to the conclusion that that the reason we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessarily to cause mass death and destruction to the lives of Japenese citizens but was to cripple their economy and destroy their will to fight so that they would willingly accept our help while rebuilding their government and economy. I stated earlier how we were in a competition with the Soviets for control over the Asian countries but now I realize that if we had not dropped the bomb or if we had merely had them surrender and then pulled out never lending them aid or moving in to shape their government, (which they probobly would not have let us done if they were not so desperate and demmoralized), Russia would have alligned themselves with Japan and numerous other countries using us as a common enemy. This also may have led to an open conflict between us and the red army in the Cold War rather than the subversive and underground conflict which is charicterized with that war.
Amanda N. said...
The devastating effects of both kinds of bombs depended essentially upon the energy released at the moment of the explosion, causing immediate fires, destructive blast pressures, and extreme local radiation exposures.
It is the Official Us Strategic Bombing survey's opinion that the Japanese would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped , even if Russia hadn't entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned.
Admiral William D. LEAHY- Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman:
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
-Madi : )
cons for the bombing:
Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.
The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.
The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.
A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.
Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.
-Madi Again.. : )
the decision of president truman to drop the a-bombs on japan was influenced by people in the state department. these men were not aware of the importance of the role of the emperor in japanese society. so these men thought that it would not be neccessary to keep some sort of monarchy in japan and called for an unconditional surrender. japan saw this as a threat to their god and emperor. this gave the japanese reason to fight until there anialation, in order to honorably protect their god; even though japan was blocked from the air and the sea, and there infrastructure was slowly being bombed away. had the U.S. called for a surrender in which japan had a constitutional monarchy inwhich the emperor could still rule in the potsdam proclamation, japan may have surrendered. this would have prevented the use of the a-bombs and the extermination of so many innocent lives
-conor d
It is estimated that nealy 140,000 peaople in Hiroshima and 74, 000 in Nagasaki were killed by the bomb. In both cities, the majority of people who died were innocent civilians who had nothing no say in military decisions. The bombing was unnecessary. There were many other ways to get Japan to surrender without so many innocent people dying. Japan was essentially defeated and so close to surrender that the bombing was unnecessarily drastic.
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." - The United States Strategic Bombing Survey
-Netta
Marvin Fletcher, a WWII Historian, says concerning the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, "A few more days might have given the Japanese government more of a chance to consider the idea of surrender."
-Drea
The dropping of "Little Boy" on Hiroshima distroyed about two thirds of the city. Within a three mile distance, approximatly 60,000 to 90,000 buildings and homes were distroyed.
~Andrew
Thousands of people died unecessarily as a result of the bomb. the japanese would have eventually surrendered even if the bomb wasnt dropped.
INNICENT!!!!
so apparently people are dumb because they put themselves as anonymous so they dont get credit. apparently. apparently. innIcent.
[IMG]http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i310/sneakybeagle/IMG_1163.jpg[/IMG]
yeahhhh
[IMG]http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i310/sneakybeagle/IMG_1163.jpg[/IMG]
yeahhhh
bombings. Secondly, the U.S passed over the possible targets of Tokyo and Osaka, two very important cities to the country, choosing instead to bomb
So apparently some people think that when you write "U.S." there is no need for a period after the "s" wow, go back to pre-school. oh and so apparently some people dont know how to type and think that there is so space after a period starting a new sentence.
the atomic bombs alsp killed a number of allies in the prisoner of war camps
-tyler
The dropping of the atomic bomb created lasting effects. Even today there is still radiation left over from the explosion that is spread throughout the world from blowning winds. You would be upset too if you all of a sudden dropped dead because you accidentally inhaled the radioative particles in the air.
There has been too many posts about the number of deaths and the number of homes and buildings destroyed by the bombs and I think that rather than restating similar facts over and over again, ( I have seen over four posts stating how many people died in Hiroshima nad Nagasaki. Each with different numbers), and focus more on the political reasoning that led to the bombings and the reprocussions that followed, (excluding the death toll).
Elizabeth said the thing on top.
ABOVE NICO'S THING.
ABOVE NICO'S COMMENT.
People on the PRO side are saying that they had to drop the bombs because it was the only way to end the war, but as Nina said, it was not the atomic bombs that caused the Japanese to surrender, so it was a completely fruitless of the Allies to drop the bombs. I'm not sure if I or someone else said this already, but to the Allies, the one of the worst things was to lose innocent lives. For the Japanese, it was terrible to surrender dishonorably. The Allies imposed their morals on the Japanese and bombed the life out of 140,000 innocent civilians. Unfortunately, the Japanese weren't discouraged terribly since obviously that wasn't cause enough to surrender. If the Allies knew anything about their enemy the Japanese, they would have tried to hit them where it hurts in a manner of speaking for what the Japanese held to be a terrible loss.
-Emily
the drastic measures taken by president truman were not neccessary; it was mostly a vengeful action following the bombing of pearl harbor.
the allies' purpose was to end the war abruptly, and rebuild wit a fresh government. but the radiation is still hazardous in hiroshima and nagasaki. ultimately, the bomb was not needed, the United States's victory was on the horizon anyway.
GET ME A CHICKEN SANDWICH AND SOME WAFFLE FRIES!!!!!!
wil's a douche
Japanese-Americans internment camps link was a legit unbiased website discussing factors leading up to the atomic bombing including dates and numbers..emotional/social viewpoint--would be good for your argument spence&julianna.
the last blog was justine i forgot to say
only fools try to destroy the word apparently
The allies didn't impose anything on the Japanese just an unconditional surrender to stop the torturing of POWs, the killing of troops on both sides, and civilians. Also the death of 140,000 of Japanese civilians might be hitting where it hurts and a loss. Not much was a terrible loss to a imperial government that was almost unwilling to surrender. Also Ballou said that the purpose of the Atomic bombs was solely to kill, but that is entirely and completely incorrect. The purpose of the Atomic bombs was for a Japanese surrender which in turn led to the saving of many thousand lives.
The americans should have found a better way to end WWII because the impact from such boming has lasted a long time. The repercussions from the bombing are still in effect and the Japonese are still suffering from the destruction. The mental impact from the amount of people that were lost was grave. Some effects that lasted through generations were ratiation poisoning and cancer.
a good site about the repercussions is http://artsci.wustl.edu/~copeland/atomicbomb.html
Elizabeth said...
The cons are totally going to win the debate tommmorrow.
by dropping the bomb we prevented overpopulation in the world; hippies should be thankful we dropped the bomb because it gave them something else to protest about; Hippies say that the U.S. wasn't justified, well were the Japanese justified to drop all there bombs, all we did was drop TWO bombs, Two very big ones; Hippies are an infestation in the US they should be glad we dropped the bombs on the japanese instead of them.
The commenton April 2 2007 at 10:01 PM was by Marisa Smith....
Marisa Smith meant 10:41 not 10:01 oopsiedaisy
sup bluh iss ya boy
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/
^ that site lists all the ships in the naval fleet from 1941-1945, describes every sea battle, tells statistics, & even has biographies of admirals on either side of the war.
killed millions of innocent people and was unneccessary because japans emperor surrendered in the end anyway. the bomb introduced new ways of killing to future generations and now every country in the world knows how to create a "weapon of mass destruction" not that its legit to quote bush..
the atomic bomb was supposed to save the amount of lives lost if the war dragged on, yet it ended up killing an immense amount, much more that expected
JUSTINE SAID
I've looked at the vedio of the aftermath in the areas of bombed cities, and I saw pictures of a baby without his skin, it was a disaster. People's eye balls melted when when looked to the way where the bomb is exploded. People with their legs or hands torn off. It was a total chaos! Let's not talk about how many people died, but let's consider one person's pain, with their skin torn off, eye balls melted, and of course radiations killed alot more, those sufferings were created by us. AND US is still making 100x powerful than atomic bombs.Just like what he said in the Spider man movie:"with great powers, bears great responsibilities!"
Just watched a Discover Channel program - they are not puppets of the US government right?, if you think that, then there is little value in reading on. THE JAPANESE HAD AN ATOMIC BOMB PROGRAM and DID SUCCESSFULLY DETONATE AN ATOMIC BOMB. A possible scenario was to put such a bomb in a submarine and DETONATE IT IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. You don't want to believe it, you were taught to believe the US is evil (if you were raised here) but open your mind to the possibility. Also, Google a search regarding the 9,000 balloons sent from Japan to the US to cause forest fires. Read how Japan attacked Alaska (didn't even know, right? It's not taught in US schools...). Educate yourself and stop being so naive!
the atomic bombs that were used to kill over 200.000 people were used to show the U.S.S.R and the rest of the world what America was capable of not to try and end the war this is why they choose the two cities that had virtually no previous bombings (hiroshima and nagasaki)
Of course it killed people, what do you think war is? There must be death and tragedy or no one's opinion will be changed.
Also, Japan would not have surrendered ANY time soon whatsoever. No more than two weeks before the bombings had Japan refused to surrender in the "Potsdam Declaration" What difference would two weeks make? They had no intent of surrendering at all.
And one more point. Like stated earlier, people would have died either way; however, had we not bombed them, we would have ended up performing a mainland invasion, which was predicted to end up with upwards of 500,000 deaths total, more than 350,000 more than actually ended up dying from the bombings. These 500,000 would have been AMERICANS included. Our president was looking out for our country and our citizens.
legal viagra viagra stories buy sublingual viagra online herbal viagra generic viagra india viagra suppliers in the uk viagra manufacturer viagra facts can women take viagra cialis super viagra what is generic viagra viagra overdose viagra buy buy sublingual viagra online
I wish not agree on it. I assume polite post. Especially the designation attracted me to read the unscathed story.
Genial post and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you as your information.
Well I assent to but I contemplate the list inform should acquire more info then it has.
Hi,
I keep coming to this website[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url]You have really contiributed very good info here mrballou.blogspot.com. Let me tell you one thing guys, some time we really forget to pay attention towards our health. Let me show you one truth. Recent Scientific Research displays that closely 60% of all USA adults are either fat or overweight[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url] So if you're one of these individuals, you're not alone. Infact many among us need to lose 10 to 20 lbs once in a while to get sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now next question is how you can achive quick weight loss? [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss[/url] is really not as tough as you think. Some improvement in of daily activity can help us in losing weight quickly.
About me: I am author of [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also mentor who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under difficult training program than you may also try [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/acai-berry-for-quick-weight-loss]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/colon-cleanse-for-weight-loss]Colon Cleansing[/url] for effortless weight loss.
buy levitra online canada
buy
It ?is improbable!
Post a Comment