(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); In school we had a debate on whether or not the atomic bomb was necessary/justified to drop on Japan. It was very interesting to see what people actually knew on the issue. Personally, I am in the middle, but currently leaning some against it.

We had to do this too and it was stupid because we couldn't choose a side, we took turns going back and forth and we had to take whichever side was next.

Personally I think it was wrong but WW2 was all about killing civilians. The Nazis were experts on the matter and the British and the US bombed citizens in Dresden, Germany in what seemed like a retaliation attack.

It's funny how a lot of Americans have no problem with the atomic bomb but act like pearl harbor was the worst genocide in the history of the world.

Well, I suppose it depends on whether you're referring to Little Boy or Fat Man. I felt that Little Boy was necessary to prove a point, whereas Fat Man may have just been an over kill. Now, don't get me wrong Hitler totally was an over kill, but 2 bombings within like 3 days I believe may have just gone over the top. And at the above post, Pearl Harbor just seems as though it was a "freakin' huge a** genocide" because it involves our citizens. The Jewish religion could look at Pearl Harbor's numbers and dream about how they wished theirs were that low.

my closing statement so far:

The Definition of terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” This is what describes our actions in dropping the atomic bomb. It was simply a political movement to express the power we had at our disposal. Both Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, both who participated in the Manhattan Project, had sent a letter to President Roosevelt comparing dropping of the bomb, righteously on Japan, by stating that if Germany had used this weapon, and lost the war, “we then would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremburg and hanged them.”

IF we didnt then it was estimated, that 6 million MORE would lose their lives.

You are misinformed. It was estimated 1 million Ally lives would have been lost. Not to mention we did not need to invade as they were running low on supplies and a blockade would have been sufficient.

Personally, I don't know much on the matter, I just know that we used those to kill a shit ton of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was it effective? Yes. Did it help? Yes. Was it morally correct? Hell no.

I'm not going to sit here and say that I know how to get a country through a war. Sometimes, in order to win, underhanded tactics are necessary. Sometimes you need to demonstrate the difference in your power. While it may have been wrong to have done what we did (if that makes sense), we need to remember that this is WAR. Sure, it's noble to be honest and fair, but sometimes, in order to survive, you can't be.

As cruel as it sounds, this is the world. This is man. We are nothing but animals that have separated themselves from nature. It's naive to think that any specific group is "above" an action. When backed into a corner, we WILL lash out with an attempt to save our lives. You can't expect humans to forget this instinct.

In war, when the most lives are threatened, is where you should expect to see the most underhanded tricks. It's cruel, but that's war for you.


But as mentioned earlier, yeah, the US is a group of hypocrites, it's fine as long as WE use the nuke, it's fine as long as WE kill innocent people, it's fine as long as WE win. God forbid anyone else does.

It was necessary, Japan didn't show any signs of surrender. It saved lives by destroying two areas that would be fire bombed by its people if the atomic bomb wasn't dropped. Sending in troops would of meant more deaths for both sides and a naval blockade would of been ineffective. Was it a drastic move? Yes but it was necessary.

In April 1945, Japan sent a document for a surrender, with the condition that the emperor be unharmed.

I looked around and couldn't find anything on this, mind sharing your source?