Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The question I pose today is whether or not the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. Do you believe that the United States should have conducted a public test of the destructiveness of nuclear weapons, in an attempt to convince the Japanese to surrender? Was the bombing of Nagasaki, which happened three days after Hiroshima, unnecessary?
Arguments for the Bombings
-The Japanese would be unlikely to surrender if the United States didn't drop the bombs, thus resulting in a greater loss of life, resources and infrastructure.
-At the time of the bombings around 80% of Japanese cities were already destroyed.
-American and Allied firebombing of Japanese cities did far more damage than both atomic bombs combined.
-A public test would reveal the potential destructiveness of a single aircraft, thus if Japan refused to surrender, they would begin targeting all individual aircraft (including non-bombers).
-The United States was not certain of the bombs would explode, thus it would be a massive international embarrassment if a public test was conducted and the bomb did not detonate.
-The United States only had two nuclear weapons at the time, a public test would have reduced that stockpile to only one nuclear weapon.
-Germany, Japan and the USSR were also developing nuclear weapons programs during World War II and it is unlikely that they would have given a "public test" first and foremost.
-World War II was a total war and thus civilian targets can be considered viable military targets. This is consistent with us using conventional bombs on Japanese and German cities.
-The second bomb sped up the surrender of Japan, thus saving lives and quickly ending the war.
-The second bomb sped up the surrender of Japan, thus weakening the Soviet Union's position in retaking the Chinese sections of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
-A public test may have terrified the American people and they could oppose the bombings from a purely emotional and irrational perspective.
-If we ended up losing massive American casualties by invading Japan and it was later revealed that it could have been avoided by dropping a bomb or two, the public would be outraged.
Arguments Against the Bombings
-The exact destructiveness of dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities was not known at the time, as the only test conducted had been in the middle of a desert.
-The bombing of Nagasaki came too soon after the bombing of Hiroshima and the Japanese had not finished assessing the damage of the first bomb.
-Continued firebombing of Japanese cities would have eventually convinced Japan to surrender.
-Dropping the bombs could strain Japanse-American relations after the war.
Last edited by Saigon; February 13, 2013 at 09:39:23 AM.
|