Was it in the best national interest of the USA to drop the atomic bombs on Japa
There have been many debates about if the USA was justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It has also been debated if it should be considered a crime against humanity. This debate will focus on national interst. Was it in the best national interest of the USA to drop the atomic bombs on Japan? If yes, then why. If no, then why not. Provide some good solid logic and evidence to back up your opinion.
Yes it was
Side Score: 7
Winning Side! |
 |
No it was not.
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
National interest is to do whatever will benefit your nation’s people. So I think that it was in the USA’s best nation interest to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many more American soldiers would have died in a land invasion of japan if not for the atomic bombs. Even if the US came up with a very strategic invasion plan, the POW camps where ordered to execute all 100,000 prisoners if America invaded. Also the US was looking at alternative attack, but decided that the bombs where the most effective. They were doing studies to see which strategy and attack would have the least amount of casualties and fatalities. The bombings also brought an end to WW2 which if it kept going both sides would’ve seen many more casualties. Side: Yes it was
There are many different opinions on whether the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified or not. In my personal opinion all the evidence that i have found point toward the bombings being justified. Some of this evidence includes that amount of American lives the Americans saved by using the bombs, since they had already lost 418,000 soldiers and civilians. Another point of evidence was that the american were looking for the shortest way to end the war and they found it. Side: Yes it was
I believe that the United States had their best national interest to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. The Japanese had launched the war in 1941 with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. They were violating numerous international agreements. The US had looked at many alternate ways of attacking the Japanese and decided that bombing was the best. Before the bombs were dropped the US gave flyers warning civilians of the impending attack. This was so the civilians who were not involved could leave and be safe. If they had not bombed Japan many more soldiers from both sides would have died in land invasions. The United States wanted to find the shortest to end the war. Without the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese government was not going to give in. The United States felt the dropping of the bombs is what got them to negotiate an end to the war. Side: Yes it was
It was in America best interest to bomb the Japanese during World War II because American was not willing to use up any more of their military recourse and they did not want to risk any more American lives in the Pacific. Japans military was beginning to get weak at the end of world war one. The Americans took the beach of Okinawa with 65,000 American lost so when they needed to take the main land of Japan to get the Japanese to surrender. Without the use of the Atomic Bomb they Americans would have lost close to 100,000-200,000 more people and the Japanese would have lost close 400,000 soldiers and civilians which is far lesser than with the use of the atomic bomb. It was also in the best interest for the US to save lives and use force with an atomic bomb. The Japanese were going to use all their military resources because they were not going to give up and surrender until they could no longer fight. The use of the Atomic bomb also reduced the length of the war by a substantial amount meaning it was in Americans best national interest to use a nuclear weapon. Side: Yes it was
I think that it was in the Americas best interest to bomb Japan. America wasn't willing to use up more of it's resources and have more people die and continue to fight. The United States looked for many other ways to end the war and decided that bombing would be the best way to do it. The US flyers gave notice to civilians who were not involved so that they had a chance to leave and be safe. If America didn't bomb Japan then more causalities on both sides would have occurred and the government would not have given in. America wanted to find the shortest way to end the war. This means that it was in the best interest for the United States to use the atomic bombs on Japan. Side: Yes it was
1
point
The bombing was needed. It wasn't like Japan was caught by surprise, they knew that US was attacking them. The US gave the option to Japan to surrender but, the Japan military was fighting under a motto called “ketsu-go.” Also the US was bombing B29 on Japans major city and had a naval blockade, but the Japanese still didn't surrender. The inability to not surrender out a major strain of the people of the Japan. The atomic bombs showed the emperor that he need to surrender. Also the president believed that the bombing would actually have less civilian death then if the war continued. Side: Yes it was
I believe that in the national interests of USA, it was in their best interest to dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. If the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped on Japan, the war between the Japanese and Americans would have gone on longer causing many more American deaths. The United States best interest was to drop the bombs and end the war in order to save the many American lives that would have been lost if the war had continued. Side: Yes it was
|
It was not in Americas national interest to use the atomic bombs. First of all Japan was pretty much defeated already because of the air bombings, naval blockade and destroyed navy. Also it has been said that Prince Konoye who was the leader of Japan thought that they had already been defeated before the bombing occurred. another thing showing that America did not need to bomb Japan could be how there was a threat of the USSR entering Japan and the fact that Japan could not get any food or raw materials because no countries would trade with them. Finally the last thing showing how the bombing were needed would be how Japan had no allies in this battle anymore because Germany had already been defeated. In all the bombing were an overkill to an already broken down country. Side: No it was not.
Eric Although the Americans sent warning letters, it was unjustified to bomb civilians. To stop the war by bombing military installations might have been justified, but the Americans wanted complete surrender meaning they wanted every person in japan to acknowledge that the USA was better and to submit defeat communally to them. At that time in history, it was an unwritten rule that civilians aren't targets for warring countries. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, it was strictly to cripple the military not to kill civilians. Just like how ISIS is doing wrong by executing civilians now, america was doing wrong than by targeting non military installations. Side: No it was not.
I don’t believe that it was in the best national of the US to bomb Japan because it was an attack against the civilians, essentially wrong allied decision; to hunt for unconditional surrender.On July 30, Ambassador Satō wrote that Stalin was probably talking to Roosevelt and Churchill about his dealings with Japan, and he wrote: "There is no alternative but immediate unconditional surrender if we are to prevent Russia's participation in the war. Nearly each different major war between major powers has not led to total defeat or unconditional surrender of either party. There will never be peace amongst all nations, however, the carnage of innocent masses isn’t the proper way to handle things any situation. The bombing of innocent civilians is a crime against humanity, the rest of the world would not look too fondly at this, which could affect trading and global relations. Side: No it was not.
|
