The main reason I think the negative side won the debate is because the atomic bombs saved lives through preventing the invasion and conventional bombing of Japan. Also, by not allowing a conditional surrender, the United States helped Japan keep a stable society with their emperor without ruining national identity. An additional bonus to the success of the bombs was that the atomic bombs also asserted the United States as the dominant hegemonic power in the world. During the debate, the affirmative side argued that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary to end the war because the United States used the bombs only to assert its global hegemonic dominance, and there were alternative options to ending the war such as negotiating with Japan to establish a conditional surrender, which Japan wanted, and using conventional bombs to invade Japan if the surrender failed. They stated that the United States only used the atomic bomb to show its power to the USSR.
In fact, the debates behind using the atomic bombs against Japan began even before the decision was made. Many of the scientists such as Leo Szilard and Dr. James Franck, who made great contributions towards the creation of the bomb, campaigned against its use. President Truman said “We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Amercicans”. It is completely understandable that President Truman’s aim was always to save the lives as many American people, but was it necessary to do it by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan? And was the reason behind the decision to drop the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki purely to ‘save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans’?
The historians who support Truman, sometimes called the traditionalists, agree that Japan had been defeated but argue that Japan was not ready to surrender and was, in fact, preparing for one last great battle that would have cost millions of lives. Popular opinion tends to side with the revisionists, but I will argue that Truman made the right decision, not only for the United States but also for Japan; in fact, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved Japan. Revisionists argue that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima after Japan’s armed forces and over sixty of its major cities had been already been destroyed. Moreover, historians such as Howard Zinn argue that Truman knew that the Japanese were trying to surrender but that he ignored them because he wanted to use the Bomb (23). Gar Alperovitz, another revisionist, says that Truman’s main purpose in dropping the bombs was to demonstrate its power in order to intimidate the Russians (127).
I disagree that the Japanese in WW2 were defeated more because of their weakness rather than the strength of the Allied forces. The Japanese weaknesses included their incapability in managing the empire they took on. The strengths of the allied powers included their intelligent military strategies, an example was the "Island Hopping Strategy of Attack" used by America. Also, the dropping of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had an impact on Japan which caused them to surrender. The term "defeated more" refers to the factor which had the greatest impact on Japan, causing them to be drove to a state of devastation and have no other way than surrender unconditionally.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed millions of people, left families with nothing, and leveled cities. The war would have gone on for a couple more years if we had not dropped the bombs and sent troops to Japan instead. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. This is one of the pros for the atomic bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of the pros for dropping the atom bombs is that the Japanese would have not surrendered.
Discuss the decision made to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. By August 1945 the Second World War was as its final stages. Only one last victory was need for the Allies in order to win the war, a victory over Japan. Ending the war with Japan during World War 2 was both difficult and problematic for the Americans. The decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had many influential factors effecting the decision.
What in your opinion was the short term significance of the use of atomic weapons in 1945? (25) It would be simplistic to argue that the end of the war in the Pacific was the most important short term significance of the use of atomic bombs in 1945 against Japan. While the use of Little Boy prompted the Japanese Emperor’s ‘ordered surrender’ , and claimed the lives of thousands of Japanese civilians, it is my opinion that the bomb sparked the onset of the Cold War. As Eisenhower said ‘Before the atom bomb was used, I would have said, yes, I was sure we could keep the peace with Russia’. , highlighting that he believed without the use of atomic weapons, the Cold War was not an inevitability.
Option two is that the United States should drop an atomic bomb on a deserted island so that the whole world can see what power we have. If the Japanese see what the atomic bomb can do then maybe they will surrender so that we don’t drop an atomic bomb on them. If they don’t surrender then we will drop an atomic bomb on Japanese civilians and we will not feel guilty because we warned them and they still continued to fight. With this option we hope to scare japan into surrendering and change the post war world we will be entering. Some risks with this option is that the atomic bomb has only been tested once before and if the demonstration does not do what we hope it will do then japan will continue to fight and the United States will lose stature
When looking at the democratization of a nation, India and South Korea share a lot of similarities. South Korea was occupied and governed by Japan pre WWII and India was ruled by Britain colonialism. Looking at Mill’s method of difference, there is one distinct variable that differentiates the states in their ascent to democratization. After WWII India was given its sovereignty by British rule in return for their military aid in the war against Japan, where as when Korea was not. After Korea was free from Japanese colonialism due to their loss in the second WWII the US military eliminated the left wing government.
But the Atomic Bomb did end World War II, but it still instigated serious controversies concerning its power and destructive potential. Although it did much harm to Japan, in the long run it was deemed necessary, and has been justified in several different ways. Compared to other alternatives for ending the war, more lives were saved by dropping the two atomic bombs. It also helped to bring this horrid war to an end. Many Americans believe that the Japanese deserved to be bombed based on how they had previously treated the United States, which is another reason why it might have been justified.