Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary? Essay

1059 Words5 Pages
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. It was not a question of saving lives; it was about showing our power to the world. The affirmative side also argued that although the Japanese population was extremely loyal to their emperor and would have sacrificed themselves to protect him, the United States could have used a conditional surrender by allowing them to keep their emperor as a symbolic leader. The Japanese population would have been satisfied because they would get to keep their emperor, and the war would have ended without any lives being lost. However, if violence was absolutely necessary, the United States should have continued bombing Japan with conventional bombs and proceeded to invade Japan. The conventional bombing runs were just as deadly as atomic bombs as firebombing of Tokyo decimated the city, killed at least two hundred thousand lives. However, the most important reason why conventional bombing was a better

More about Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary? Essay

Open Document