[Smiley0.o]

(Dang it, I messed up the tittle, because WWII should be capitalized.)

Do you think President Truman made the right decision to drop the atomic bomb in Japan?
What have it shapes the world of today?
It is obvious for what happened in North Korea, the America granted those million or billion of dollars. Which this will lead other nation to intimidate the same thing, it's a way to get money off from America by threatening, so called America is now the appeaser.

As for me, I think President Truman made the wrong decision; scientists make atomic bomb is immoral cause disharmony in the world.
Although I do think it was moral during the WWII, because Japanese invades Vietnam, China, etc., and they were stubborn for refusing to surrender, even though they were loosing. The atomic bomb was to stop them from invading, giving up, protect American civilian, and the soldiers from sacrificing. Japanese killed many civilian in China, I was shocked about the fact they raped so many women and slaughtering the civilian, and leaving the bodies all over, it is just sad. A female journalist went there, she was horrified at what she had seen and after she came back to her homeland, she committed suicide. (I wish I have the exact details of the names and all the numbers of people were killed, but I left my folder in class. I went on Google, but it was just disturbing.) The atomic bomb made million of Japanese came back to their homeland after the first atomic bomb, and then comes the second bomb in another city in Japan.

President Truman should have demonstrated it in unpopulated location, but whose know if Japanese are still willing to surrender. Even if it should have happened that way, and the America should help out other nation from invading, well, America are not willing to sacrifice 10,000 of soldiers to go in Japan, why would they help out other nation? (They would have to think twice.) Even during the WWII invasion of China, the America did not step in, only in Europe because Germany was becoming a threat. About invasion in China, there's no point of helping, Japanese are not strong as Germany. It was best to drop the atomic bomb to stop them being ruthless and to warn Soviet Union from trying to invade other nation in Eastern Europe.

My second opinion, it is immoral because it has shaped the world of today and influencing other country to know the formula to make atomic bomb and declare war and all. If America did not make or even reveal the atomic bomb, other country wouldn't even know the formula of the atomic bomb existed. The America started this, and influencing for what happened in North Korea. Even if the America did not create the atomic bomb, it would have been Japan or other nation, but I guess everything just slightly happened for reasons.

Please share your opinion. =]

[joonage]

Hmmm ... If I were you, I'd fix some of your grammar mistakes. I could barely make out what you said. >.<

Anyway, I can't really say if it was a good idea or not to drop the atomic bomb. Lets just say that if the bomb hadn't been dropped, America wouldn't be what it is now. Most likely, Japan would be like North Korea and probably would have never become the technological power it is right now. I don't think America wouldn't be as powerful as it is now.

Iono ... that's just my opinion. Heck, Japan might have been a third world country now if the atomic bomb hadn't been dropped. Nobody knows. But then at that time, I think it was a good idea for Truman to drop the bomb. It showed the power of America and if they hadn't dropped the bomb, Japan would have probably attacked more US soil.

[Smiley0.o]

Hmmm ... If I were you, I'd fix some of your grammar mistakes. I could barely make out what you said. >.<

Okay, I'm done. lol

[Stevent]

I think that even if America did not create the atomic bomb, some form of it would still be developed regardless of America's launch nuclear warhead towards Hiroshima and Nakasaki, due to the technological growth. One nation would have found it out one way or another. True that bombing Japan was an immoral act because it killed thousands of innocent civilians, but America did give a warning to Japan before we initiated the launch.

[blue_shoe]

Yeah, it was a race. If US didn't do it, Japan would have done it on us. And I'm sorry to say, had Japan developed first, omgosh, they probably would have shown us less mercy.

Besides, we gave Japan a warning to surrender. Japan didn't. I think the question here is "Do you think Japanese power holders made the right decision not to surrender?" and the obvious answer is, no, they made a stupid decision not to surrender.

Also, in war, EVERYBODY LOSES!!! Japan slaughteredd Chinese, Chinese kills Vietnamese. Vietnamese kills Laos and Cambodians. Yeah, it never ends.

Also Honnie, you're so innocent. US never revealed the atomic formula, other countries developed on their own. I mean it's not like once we got hold of the formula, no one else can come up w/ it. It's up for grab.

[chinkboye22]

how much time did the US give those people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a notice of the atomic bomb???
and im sure everyone could of evacuated so quickly right??? and im sure they all had skylines and plenty of vehicles to leave in an our or so? and im sure all of them got the message of the atomic bomb

not saying Japan is right but everything has pros and cons and whatever happened happened
plus America was pissed as hell when Japan did Pearl Harbor without warning

[MUGETSU]

Allied force casualties were projected to be in the millions from a land invasion of Japan.

The Allied alliance was already kinda coming apart near the end of WW2.

Besides ending the war, the US used the atomic bomb to show Russia they had this destructive power and had the willingness to use such power.

A few years later Russia would have their own atomic weapon, starting the cold war.

Germany, Japan, and Russia had similiar atomic weapon research going on during the war.

Even if the US didn't use the bomb, it would only be a matter of time before other nations would have their own arsenals. Also without the bomb, a land invasion would have to be done or conventional bombing anyway (which is the same thing as dropping an atomic bomb only on a much smaller scale).

[kdclk313]

yes i think he made the right decision
invading mainland japan would have sacrified an estimated 1-2.7 million american lives
the japanese needed to be stopped, and the bombs ensured it

and to your second opinion, the scientific methods behind creating an atomic bomb are extremely simple
someone somwhere would have been bound to figure it out

[jawnjohn]

good decision.
japanese annexation of korea over. owned.

[fuugi]

the first bomb may or may not be justified.

but i rekon a second bomb was just plain unneccessary.

[Overclocked]

i'm no expert on this topic, but i have a few pointers concerning your work.
Everything you say is in your opinion so don't use "my second opinion" and don't use as for me cause it's always going to be about you, it's your writting.
Also, you must be concrete in your last paragraph, i get the impression you have two different voices "Even if the America did not create the atomic bomb, it would have been Japan or other nation, but I guess everything just slightly happened for reasons."
it's off topicish and it's America not THE America.

sorry to sound harsh but it'll help your grades.

[plusone]

Just a few points.

I think Truman was completely justified in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Operation Downfall was the invasion plan mapped out for Japan after the fall of Nazi Germany. There was an X-Day scheduled, which was the equivalent of D-Day for Japan. Estimates vary, but a moderate one suggested that in a 180 day campaign, the US would have suffered about 1.2 million casualties, with about 250,000 deaths. A first month estimate was between 23,000 and 50,000. About 225,000 people died in the two atomic bombings. Compare that to the lowest estimate of around 300,000 American deaths for Operation Downfall combined with massive Japanese civilian and military casualties. Also remember that these estimate of American losses didnt include projected casualties for the other Allied nations. Studies suggest around 5 to 10 million Japanese casualties would have happened in the best case scenario. That's a lot more deaths than from the atomic bombings.

The military invasion was also complicated to plan. Because of the long distance from any Allied Nation besides from the Soviet Union, Allies would be at a disadvantage. Also, the disintegrating relationship between USSR and the Allies might have meant the the Allied forces would be less cohesive, thereby less effective.

the bomb itself? its not as if only the US were in the running for an atomic weapon. Even Germany had plans to develop nuclear bombs and certainly may have done so had they had the time. Its highly conceivable that the nukes would have been developed by someone else anyway regardless of Truman's decision.

and regarding 'chinkboye22's point, America wasn't 'warning' the Japanese in the sense of 'we're going to bomb your city so you might want to get out before we take you down with it'. Americans warned that the unless the Japanese surrendered they would receive a devastating attack. The main point of the attack wasn't to destroy the city and therefore the city's military resources. That may have been a side point, but the main point was to give them incentive to surrender before they got incinerated completely. Unfortunately, the Japanese didn't heed the warning. Japan never even knew what the form the promised 'devastation' would come in, or where. They didn't even know that they were going to get bombed until they saw a plane on their radar screen.

[lily-chan]

Coincidentally, I'm doing a paper about this haha.

In many ways, this is still a very debated issue. People still speculate on the fact that even without a bomb, Japan would have eventually surrendered due to the fact that they were obviously out of natural resources, food, supplies, and soldiers to fight the war. Furthermore, it has been revealed that the war-extremists, who persued on wanting to continue fighting in Japan were the only reason why they did surrender. Japanese officials declared later on that they would have surrendered at any given reason (ie: The invasion that the Americans planned to do in the first place, but never did).

There's also the fact that if Truman did not make the decision to bomb Japan, the Soviets would have eventually invaded Asia. And even though they were on the side of the Allies, they would have made Japan and many other asian countries into communists countries, which the United-States did not want.

So was it right? It's still very ambiguous.

[Smiley0.o]

i'm no expert on this topic, but i have a few pointers concerning your work.
Everything you say is in your opinion so don't use "my second opinion" and don't use as for me cause it's always going to be about you, it's your writting.
Also, you must be concrete in your last paragraph, i get the impression you have two different voices "Even if the America did not create the atomic bomb, it would have been Japan or other nation, but I guess everything just slightly happened for reasons."
it's off topicish and it's America not THE America.

sorry to sound harsh but it'll help your grades.

Sí , señor. =D I wasn't born here, but I'm still working on my grammars. Yes, it was harsh but I'll be fine. o_o

by the way, it was just randomly put (note to self: should be organize, *ahem* not used to it) because I still haven't type out my essay yet which includes with claim, clarification, evidence, justification, and conclusion.
-----------

(Education people are so dangerous. Probably in the future, other country would use atomic bomb on each other, and then the world would come into an end, or it would be because of global warning. Which sucks, I still want the world of 2057 to come.)

Okay, back to topic.
Thanks to the people that actually had spent their time on typing about WWII.

[MUGETSU]

Sí , señor. =D I wasn't born here, but I'm still working on my grammars. Yes, it was harsh but I'll be fine. o_o

by the way, it was just randomly put (note to self: should be organize, *ahem* not used to it) because I still haven't type out my essay yet which includes with claim, clarification, evidence, justification, and conclusion.
-----------

(Education people are so dangerous. Probably in the future, other country would use atomic bomb on each other, and then the world would come into an end, or it would be because of global warning. Which sucks, I still want the world of 2057 to come.)

Okay, back to topic.
Thanks to the people that actually had spent their time on typing about WWII.

mutually assured destruction deters nations from launching nuclear weapons against each other.

however, since a terrorist group is based on ideals rather than a piece of land like a nation is...they can be crazy enough to detonate a nuclear weapon.

[kdclk313]

the first bomb may or may not be justified.

but i rekon a second bomb was just plain unneccessary.

the first bomb was for japan
the second bomb was for russia

a lot of historians think that we were trying scare the rest of the world with our nuclear might

[lovablekrnstar63]

i can't agree with you there
i do think pres. truman's decision is justified.

i had to write an essay whether i thought pres. truman
(did you know in harry s. truman, the s doesn't stand for anything? how weird..)
was justified in bombing hiroshima & nagasaki
i dont remember what i exactly wrote about
but from what i remember, pres. truman was backed into a corner
(gosh, i really wish i could remember but i cant remember, sorry guys!)
and other countries would have known about atomic bombs
america was spending almost all its resources
(majority of america's resources, like electricity, was being used on the manhattan project during this time)
because the US were in a rush b/c they were desperate to create the weapon before other countries

and the soviet union signed a treaty that said
if the soviet union helped out in the war, they would get land to REPAIR
in accordance to how much they fought.
(so if they fought for a long time, they would get a lotta land, if they fought for a little, they would get little land)
and the soviet union signed it & the US bombed japan the day after
b/c by this time soviet union is communist
& the US was afraid of the domino affect, and if soviet union had control over more land, those land would turn to communism
& communism would spread
so effectively, the soviet union was in the war for one day.
so they got north korea to repair.
(keep in mind, this was only to REPAIR.)
the united states got south korea to repair.
US left south korea after they repaired everything but soviet union didn't leave,
and we all know what happened from there
so pres. truman really needed to end the war quickly once soviet union joined the war.

i do admit, the bombings were unnecessary
b/c before the bombing, japan said:
we will surrender if you let us keep our emperor.
after the bombing, japan said:
we will surrender if you let us keep our emperor.
so basically..yep. so much bloodshed & hatred born for nothing
(but i might be wrong on this. this might be another war..can somebody please verify?)

god, i LOVE conversations like this!
..sorry. i'm just so nerdy to the heart. =]

[wookay]

haha for a moment I thought u were talking about the Wii that just came out !!! lolllllll but yeah try to keep your essay out of run ons. Remember to put a common or a period after you finish a thought. Well many people believe that president did the right decision dear. If it wasn't for him. We wouldn't have california ( which you are living on) lollllll. Reply if u want because i'm lazy too type.

[Voltage]

I'm sorry if my remarks come off as sounding caustic, but people need to start learning the background material before formulating an opinion about such a sensitive issue. If you attend a public school, your text books will most likely give you a jaded version of WWII. I suggest people to be highly suspicious to any form of interpretation regarding wars. Now with that said, WWII can be considered one of the most brutal and reckless wars of all time. The question people seem to be asking is if the U.S. was justified in its decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. I want to keep this short so I'll just get right to the point: before even dropping the atomic bombs, the U.S. deployed bombers to napalm nearly every major city in Japan. This method of attack was highly effective because Japanese constructions were primarily made of wood (e.g. Tokyo). So on average, 60% of every major city in Japan was burned to the ground with immeasurable citizen casualties. Fast forward some weeks, and the U.S. dropped those a-bombs. The Japanese were already known for their brutal military strategies such as kamikaze attacks, but the U.S., responding to the Pearl Harbor attacks, left no doubt who could be the cruelest.

I know that the Japanese were responsible for many war crimes including sex slavery, but to say that the U.S. wasn't doing the exact same thing to other Asian nations would be naive. Koreans like myself might side with the U.S. because the bombs ultimately led to Korea's liberation, but we should always remember that it was the U.S., Theo Roosevelt, who sold Korea off to Japan in the first place.