Harry Truman was justified in dropping the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Do you agree or diagree? Support your opinion by using specific examples (facts) to explain your position.
i agree. its like i sadi in my last quote. they showed us disrespect by trying to kill us, so we needed to take care of bisnuss and show them that no one can mess with the U.S. if we didnt then they would have looked at us like we were weak and went after us even more like Iraq and Osamma Bin Laden and those other people in the East. So even though alot of innocent people died, more inncoent people would have died if we went to war with them, like we did Iraq.
Even though i just majority loled at brandons response, i kind of agree with him. I think that the U.S. was justified at dropping the Atomic bomb because its for our protection. I dont advocate the war but i do feel the need to say that i believe we should protect ourselves. Just like in the Holocaust. I really dont like killing, but i would understand why the Jews would want to kill the Nazis. not only for their revenge but for further protection. So, conclusively, therefore, in addition, lastly, I think its totes okay for them to bomb those guys because it was for future protection.
I agree, because the Japanese performed a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. This resulted in Harry Truman retaliating against Japan and dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think Harry Truman was justified to drop the atomic bomb. After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Truman's main goal was to make peace. At that time, there was a theory that dropping an atomic bomb on the civilians would force the government to make peace.The Americans, who had lost many people from the Pearl Harbor attack knew peace was the only way to ensure the country's safety. Although this theory was later disproved, Truman had a justified reason to drop the atomic bomb.
i think it's sort of justified but not really. what's justice if it means killing civilians and innocent people? i'm talking about pearl harbor also, not just nagasaki and hiroshima. hiroshima was of military importance so i guess that's justified. nagasaki on the other hand, was a residential and commercial bay city. even though they had industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials on they bay, i don't think that bombing was justified. maybe a smaller bomb just on the port would have been better.
I agree with Niriel. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in hopes of weakening our naval fleet on the Pacific. Although both were militaristic, Truman didn't take into account the residential portion of Nagasaki. In his attempts to dismantle the Japanese military, he also caused severe damage to its residents. His overall goal was to avoid invasion of Japan with his soldiers. He knew there would probably be many American casualties that way, and he'd rather not risk it. But, what is the definition of an American soldier? What do those commercial advertisements want us to believe about joining the American army? That you're part of something larger than yourself. That you're entering willing to live or die for the sake of the American people. I dislike joining the army for nationalistic reasons (although what other reason is there?) and i of course am appalled by the barbaric bloodshed of mankind. But soldiers know what they are to be facing. They are aware of the risks, and go out and fight anyways. Why kill Japanese civilians? A simple air raid would've sufficed on military factions ONLY. Not atomic bombing and poisoning people with radiation. There could've been another way. This decision was drastic and risky, but that's really just war itself.
i agree because if japan didnt attack the U.S. we would not of attacked them. Also we wernt going to sit here and do nothing and let Japan walk all over us; we had to make a name for ourselves. Alot of other countrys would of attacked us if we didnt attack Japan back.
It was not a good thing to do because it killed many innocent people. War has always been bad. At some point this gave an end to the war and the bad was gone.
I agree with Truman, only because if he did not attack, the Japanese may have seen the US as a pathetic and weak country and attack us even more. Harry Truman ordered atomic bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after the Japanese didn't surrender. The US atomic bombs create 5x more of an explosion. This created a new kind of war which was the nuclear war.
i both disagree and agree with Harry Truman dropping the atomic bomb on hiroshima and Nagasaki. I agree with this because it shows that the united states can defend itself and it is better to attack japan while we can. I also disagree with this because it killed so many innocent people who have done nothing wrong to deserve this.
I believe that dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because Japan started a war with America and they weren't going to end it through peaceful means so America needed to end it quickly before more innocent people from America were hurt. Also, if America didn't do anything then other countries would have begun to view it as weak and would have attacked as well as the Japanese.
Actually, if I agreed I think I would be contradicting my own answer to the blog from 2 weeks ago. I don’t think war can be justified. Yes, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the US lost many lives. And yes, if we did not respond they would have thought that we were weak and that they were free to do whatever they wanted. In a way, it can seem as a good thing that we fought back and showed them that we had power. However, I believe, though it might have been hard at the time, that there could have been other ways to solve this conflict besides dropping bombs in not one, but two cities, killing many innocent citizens of Japan. We do not have the right to call this defense or protection, because I am sure that even Harry Truman knew that dropping bombs would not make peace, but do exactly the opposite- create war. By dropping bombs in Japan, we got involved in war. It is known that Truman decided to do so because he believed that sending troops in Japan would cause more casualties considering that Japan had made extensive preparations to defend their homeland. After, the Japanese were forced to make peace- peace is not the key word, forced is. If humans were more willing to give up some things and be less selfish, I think this world could potentially be war-free. Millions of civilians were killed in WWII. I can understand how Truman was stuck in a dilemma and had a hard choice to make, but I do not think that justifies the actions that were taken at the time. This is really hard. “In politics, the concept of national or mutual self-defense to counter a war of aggression refers to a defensive war organized by the state and is one possible criterion in the just war theory” (Wikipedia). I guess there are times when some things should be done to be protected, but honestly, all war does is kill not only the ones who did wrong, but the innocent people as well.
I do not agree with Truman because war can never be tolerated, or as lily said, justified. Harry Truman knew what the consequences would be for dropping bombs. He knew that a war would be created. Japan did start the war however, which is one way that one could think this situation could be justified. In my opinion, the US was justified for protecting its own people.
In most ways, Truman was wrong in saying he had justification on dropping the bomb on Nagasaki. Yes Pearl Harbor justified the United States for revenge against the Japanese but the bomb on Nagasaki produced damages and casualties beyond those of Pearl Harbor. It wiped out buildings, thousands of people in an instant and caused even more damage afterwards. The losses for both sides simply don't balance out. Branko A
The atom bomb should have never been used and never should be again. Some may yes because they attacked us at pearl harbor and they "deserve" it. Well Japan's attacks attacked many people in the army/navy/air force. The bombs that we dropped were against the ordinary people not only soldiers. So no it was not right.
I agree, dropping the bomb was to force the two to make peace. If Japan did not attack us we would not have attacked back. The result was a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which collaborated the US into fighting back.
i agree because it is normal to seek revenge after being heavily attacked. I also think if we did not stand up for our self they might have done it again feeling like we are scared to fight back. so over all yes i think it was justified but this is a rare time i think that war is justified. ps please give me credit i just got hom
I think it was justified because our protection. Pearl Harbor justified the bomb. It was just pay back. They were trying to get even, and make us look stronger. We stopped Japan from doing what ever they wanted and for that reason it was a good thing.
i think he shouldnt have done that right away. he murdered thousands of innocent people. i know that our country was in immense danger but he didn't have to go about that so quickly and irresponsibly. if i were in his shoes i think i would have just threatened japan with it and if they didn't back down then i would have had to take action but he gave them no chance.
I believe something like an atomic bomb is never justified. The thousands of lives one bomb can end or destroy makes it inhumane for a person to wish it to be dropped. It may have been the best thing for Americans, not having to lose their men in a land invasion, but so much destruction was un-necessarily put upon the Japanese without warning or sympathy. I think there could have been a way for us to defeat Japan without this atrocity.
i agree with the bombing because of how the japenese bomb us on pearl harbor and also but at the same time i wish the united states would have let the japenese women and childhren to escape the cruel bombing.
i agree. its like i sadi in my last quote. they showed us disrespect by trying to kill us, so we needed to take care of bisnuss and show them that no one can mess with the U.S. if we didnt then they would have looked at us like we were weak and went after us even more like Iraq and Osamma Bin Laden and those other people in the East. So even though alot of innocent people died, more inncoent people would have died if we went to war with them, like we did Iraq.
ReplyDeleteEven though i just majority loled at brandons response, i kind of agree with him. I think that the U.S. was justified at dropping the Atomic bomb because its for our protection. I dont advocate the war but i do feel the need to say that i believe we should protect ourselves. Just like in the Holocaust. I really dont like killing, but i would understand why the Jews would want to kill the Nazis. not only for their revenge but for further protection. So, conclusively, therefore, in addition, lastly, I think its totes okay for them to bomb those guys because it was for future protection.
ReplyDeleteI agree, because the Japanese performed a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. This resulted in Harry Truman retaliating against Japan and dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
ReplyDeleteI think Harry Truman was justified to drop the atomic bomb. After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Truman's main goal was to make peace. At that time, there was a theory that dropping an atomic bomb on the civilians would force the government to make peace.The Americans, who had lost many people from the Pearl Harbor attack knew peace was the only way to ensure the country's safety. Although this theory was later disproved, Truman had a justified reason to drop the atomic bomb.
ReplyDeletei think it's sort of justified but not really. what's justice if it means killing civilians and innocent people? i'm talking about pearl harbor also, not just nagasaki and hiroshima. hiroshima was of military importance so i guess that's justified. nagasaki on the other hand, was a residential and commercial bay city. even though they had industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials on they bay, i don't think that bombing was justified. maybe a smaller bomb just on the port would have been better.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Niriel. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in hopes of weakening our naval fleet on the Pacific. Although both were militaristic, Truman didn't take into account the residential portion of Nagasaki. In his attempts to dismantle the Japanese military, he also caused severe damage to its residents. His overall goal was to avoid invasion of Japan with his soldiers. He knew there would probably be many American casualties that way, and he'd rather not risk it. But, what is the definition of an American soldier? What do those commercial advertisements want us to believe about joining the American army? That you're part of something larger than yourself. That you're entering willing to live or die for the sake of the American people. I dislike joining the army for nationalistic reasons (although what other reason is there?) and i of course am appalled by the barbaric bloodshed of mankind. But soldiers know what they are to be facing. They are aware of the risks, and go out and fight anyways. Why kill Japanese civilians? A simple air raid would've sufficed on military factions ONLY. Not atomic bombing and poisoning people with radiation. There could've been another way. This decision was drastic and risky, but that's really just war itself.
ReplyDeletei agree because if japan didnt attack the U.S. we would not of attacked them. Also we wernt going to sit here and do nothing and let Japan walk all over us; we had to make a name for ourselves. Alot of other countrys would of attacked us if we didnt attack Japan back.
ReplyDeleteIt was not a good thing to do because it killed many innocent people. War has always been bad. At some point this gave an end to the war and the bad was gone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Truman, only because if he did not attack, the Japanese may have seen the US as a pathetic and weak country and attack us even more. Harry Truman ordered atomic bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after the Japanese didn't surrender. The US atomic bombs create 5x more of an explosion. This created a new kind of war which was the nuclear war.
ReplyDeletei both disagree and agree with Harry Truman dropping the atomic bomb on hiroshima and Nagasaki. I agree with this because it shows that the united states can defend itself and it is better to attack japan while we can. I also disagree with this because it killed so many innocent people who have done nothing wrong to deserve this.
ReplyDeleteI believe that dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because Japan started a war with America and they weren't going to end it through peaceful means so America needed to end it quickly before more innocent people from America were hurt. Also, if America didn't do anything then other countries would have begun to view it as weak and would have attacked as well as the Japanese.
ReplyDeleteActually, if I agreed I think I would be contradicting my own answer to the blog from 2 weeks ago. I don’t think war can be justified. Yes, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the US lost many lives. And yes, if we did not respond they would have thought that we were weak and that they were free to do whatever they wanted. In a way, it can seem as a good thing that we fought back and showed them that we had power. However, I believe, though it might have been hard at the time, that there could have been other ways to solve this conflict besides dropping bombs in not one, but two cities, killing many innocent citizens of Japan. We do not have the right to call this defense or protection, because I am sure that even Harry Truman knew that dropping bombs would not make peace, but do exactly the opposite- create war. By dropping bombs in Japan, we got involved in war. It is known that Truman decided to do so because he believed that sending troops in Japan would cause more casualties considering that Japan had made extensive preparations to defend their homeland. After, the Japanese were forced to make peace- peace is not the key word, forced is. If humans were more willing to give up some things and be less selfish, I think this world could potentially be war-free. Millions of civilians were killed in WWII. I can understand how Truman was stuck in a dilemma and had a hard choice to make, but I do not think that justifies the actions that were taken at the time.
ReplyDeleteThis is really hard. “In politics, the concept of national or mutual self-defense to counter a war of aggression refers to a defensive war organized by the state and is one possible criterion in the just war theory” (Wikipedia). I guess there are times when some things should be done to be protected, but honestly, all war does is kill not only the ones who did wrong, but the innocent people as well.
I do not agree with Truman because war can never be tolerated, or as lily said, justified. Harry Truman knew what the consequences would be for dropping bombs. He knew that a war would be created. Japan did start the war however, which is one way that one could think this situation could be justified. In my opinion, the US was justified for protecting its own people.
ReplyDeleteIn most ways, Truman was wrong in saying he had justification on dropping the bomb on Nagasaki. Yes Pearl Harbor justified the United States for revenge against the Japanese but the bomb on Nagasaki produced damages and casualties beyond those of Pearl Harbor. It wiped out buildings, thousands of people in an instant and caused even more damage afterwards. The losses for both sides simply don't balance out.
ReplyDeleteBranko A
The atom bomb should have never been used and never should be again. Some may yes because they attacked us at pearl harbor and they "deserve" it. Well Japan's attacks attacked many people in the army/navy/air force. The bombs that we dropped were against the ordinary people not only soldiers. So no it was not right.
ReplyDeleteI agree, dropping the bomb was to force the two to make peace. If Japan did not attack us we would not have attacked back. The result was a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which collaborated the US into fighting back.
ReplyDeletei agree because it is normal to seek revenge after being heavily attacked. I also think if we did not stand up for our self they might have done it again feeling like we are scared to fight back. so over all yes i think it was justified but this is a rare time i think that war is justified. ps please give me credit i just got hom
ReplyDeleteI think it was justified because our protection. Pearl Harbor justified the bomb. It was just pay back. They were trying to get even, and make us look stronger. We stopped Japan from doing what ever they wanted and for that reason it was a good thing.
ReplyDeletei think he shouldnt have done that right away. he murdered thousands of innocent people. i know that our country was in immense danger but he didn't have to go about that so quickly and irresponsibly. if i were in his shoes i think i would have just threatened japan with it and if they didn't back down then i would have had to take action but he gave them no chance.
ReplyDeleteI believe something like an atomic bomb is never justified. The thousands of lives one bomb can end or destroy makes it inhumane for a person to wish it to be dropped. It may have been the best thing for Americans, not having to lose their men in a land invasion, but so much destruction was un-necessarily put upon the Japanese without warning or sympathy. I think there could have been a way for us to defeat Japan without this atrocity.
ReplyDeletei agree with the bombing because of how the japenese bomb us on pearl harbor and also but at the same time i wish the united states would have let the japenese women and childhren to escape the cruel bombing.
ReplyDelete