miniamp Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 I'm sorry, but I honestly love to debate I am asking your personnel opinion on the topic above, should we of dropped the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945? I say yes, simply because Japan was preparing defenses for the home islands, it was estimated that it would cost 1 million U.S. soldiers, and millions more Japanese, they were sending 2 million soldiers to the home islands, not including all the Men, Women, and Children that would of been sacrificed as well, kids were being trained to run under American tanks with bombs strapped to them, women were being trained to attack soldiers with knifes attached to broom sticks. If we didn't drop them it would of cost more life than the atomic bombs combined, and if they didn't they would of committed ritual suicide Now even if we didn't invade, the only other solution besides the bombs would of been the already on going fire bombing campaign, which leveled Tokyo, and resulted in more deaths than Hiroshima. We would of bombed every single city. Then having American G.I.'s "victoriously" marching down the streets of southern Asian cities/countries, with corpses flooding the streets. Hell it could even be compared with Hitlers holocaust. They would be starved due to the lack of food, the immense smell of death, and disease would run rampant due to the overflow of decomposing bodies. I want good, well written out reply's, and if want to say your view without writing an essay, just say I agree/disagree with ____ have fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinyl Scratch Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 Not 2, the 2nd one was over stepping the boundaries, even if they didn't surrender after the 1, too many civilians were killed. Can't make up for that unfortunately. Moment of silence for the innocent and enemy and ally troops killed..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of Winter Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 Was it a good thing to do? of course not, but it had to be done. If the bombs weren't dropped, more lives would have been taken just like you said miniamp. It was necessary for them to drop them to end the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miniamp Posted June 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 I guess you guys are right, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hotdog8818 Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 Yes was it best thing to do yes. We either could of invaded that took 8 years or numeric them that only took a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TR Talon Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 We did it and that's all that matters now. They bombed us first so they had it coming. You can't pull any punches in war, it's all or nothing. Innocent people get hurt in war and if people can't handle that then they have no business going to war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZB-85 Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 I absolutely think it was the right thing to do. The first bomb was a warning to stop, when they didn't then America dropped the second bomb. It was a great idea to drop them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 I think it was the right thing to do, if we wouldn't have dropped those bombs we would be who we are today. America wouldn't be America and the world would not be what it is today, even though it's pretty bad anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.