Why we should use the atomic bomb.

[dalmo]

I am currently enrolled in US History II and as part of the class we have to participate in a simulation. The simulation is a debate over whether or not we should use the atomic bomb against the Japanese. I have written my Thesis and would greatly appreciate if I could get some feedback.

The Jap has proved to be too proud an infestation to combat with conventional warfare any longer, the only means to completely remove this threat from our horizon is total annihilation through the use of atomic weaponry.

I will post more of the paper as I get it done.

[Slawter]

plus we need to test this weoponry against human beings and we haven't tried this yet

[Strength]

Shit man, looking like an A+ paper so far.

[MyGuitarSticks]

Excuse me, is this 1945?

[SgtBrainDead]

if we did not use the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki we would have lost over 1 million marine lives invading japan and that`s not even counting the civilian casualties. so yes it was right to drop those two bombs

[Eddyking]

At 10/31/09 12:47 PM, MyGuitarSticks wrote: Excuse me, is this 1945?

Yeah, he's saying why the US should nuke the Japs.

[Fleuve]

Its a sticky situation. People are still plagued from the effects of the bomb.
But at the same time, the human race is too many! So I'm down with the dying!!

[dalmo]

At 10/31/09 12:52 PM, Fleuve wrote: Its a sticky situation. People are still plagued from the effects of the bomb.
But at the same time, the human race is too many! So I'm down with the dying!!

The great thing about the simulation is that it takes place before we have even tested the bomb so we are still unaware of the lasting effects of the bomb itself. So if in the middle of a debate someone says something about Nuclear Radiation I can just stand up and ask them where they got their facts.

Opening Paragraph

The problem of the Jap is now more present than ever before and is a threat on the horizon, no longer can America cannot sit idly by and wait for another Pearl Harbor. We are a strong nation and the only one capable of finishing the fight against this threat. The Jap has proven to be too proud an infestation to combat with conventional warfare any longer, the only means to completely remove this threat from our horizon is total annihilation through the use of atomic weaponry.

[MwnciHead]

The Jap has proved to be too proud an infestation to combat with conventional warfare any longer, the only means to completely remove this threat from our horizon is total annihilation through the use of atomic weaponry.

"infestation"

woundt have used that terminology. would use the term "proud and stubborn adversary being led to destruction"

"completley remove this threat"

again, not good at describing the situation. Japanese in retreat, US with naval and air superiority, the chic to drop the bombs was made as it was reasoned that it would cause less los of life than an invasion.

" total annihilation through the use of atomic weaponry"

i) noone really knew what effect these weapons would have - they were pretty much untested, despite the test detonations of the mannhatan project. so although large scale desturction was expected, noone had any idea about exactly what to expcet (apart from maybe oppenhiemer -quote: "now I have become the destroyer of worlds)

ii) the US never intended to completley destroy Japan through atom bombs (the 2 that existed were dropped) - only to force them to surrender through shock and fear at this new weapon. worked quite well huh?

[TiredPaperBoy]

Convential means of warfare which have proven effective against their allies will not work against the Japanease, their social idea's of honour and justice will not allow themselves to be beaten like their northen allies, we must land one last decissive strike to assure them they can not win, or else they will fight untill their last breathe.

We did something like that in GCSE history, but it was in a different context, you oculd take parts of my answer if you like.

[dalmo]

At 10/31/09 12:58 PM, TiredPaperBoy wrote: Convential means of warfare which have proven effective against their allies will not work against the Japanease, their social idea's of honour and justice will not allow themselves to be beaten like their northen allies, we must land one last decissive strike to assure them they can not win, or else they will fight untill their last breathe.

We did something like that in GCSE history, but it was in a different context, you oculd take parts of my answer if you like.

Do you still have the paper? If possible I would like to read it, I wouldn't plagiarize it but it would be nice to have another point of view on it and see how you did it.

[jake-thesnake]

At 10/31/09 12:44 PM, dalmo wrote: The Jap has proved to be too proud an infestation to combat with conventional warfare any longer, the only means to completely remove this threat from our horizon is total annihilation through the use of atomic weaponry.

I will post more of the paper as I get it done.

Woah; sounds like you are really getting into this. I can't wait to read some more of it. C:

[ChazzGoth]

If we didn't use the Atomic Bomb there would be a lot more Japanese people in the world right now.

And we don't want that.

[BabiesAteMyDingo]

You must remember, that speed and surprise were needed to defeat the Japanese. American intelligence from the period was, to put it shortly, rubbish.

Japanese were far expanding into China and it was a threat to American forces fighting there. They were in territory they knew and understood. And for America it would have been a loosing battle.

Also we know from Pearl Harbour that, not only were the Japanese prepared to use obscene tactics to achieve their goal. But also because it is a country based on honour and pride, they were willing to do anything to see victory.

But there were also, other reason for using atomic warfare. This is fundamentally to do with the arms race between the USA and the former USSR. Americans were keen to prove themselves victorious over the Communist regime of the USSR by being the first to successfully detonate nuclear weaponry.

Therefore you actually see the emergence of two independent reasons as to why nuclear force was used against Japan.

History lesson aside, nuclear warfare is a disgusting practice which is designed to cause mass destruction quickly at the expense of thousands of innocent lives. So I'm totally against it.

[1Tyla1]

At 10/31/09 12:48 PM, SgtBrainDead wrote: if we did not use the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki we would have lost over 1 million marine lives invading japan and that`s not even counting the civilian casualties. so yes it was right to drop those two bombs

War is never "right". A million marines or a bomb, that to this day, people are still affected by, and will have more people hurt by it because of it. Both are a horrible choice, but one would keep with their people and go with whatever seems the best for their people. No, it was not "right", it was the best thing they could come up with for their end of things, however.

[Ericho]

This should probably be in the "Politics" section. Anyway, using the atomic bomb would not be a good idea, because the war we fought was an offensive war where there were countries clearly trying to move into other, using nothing but sheer force. Using the atomic bomb would probably only cause more distrust and hatred among the community.

[MasterBalls]

Americans can say what they want, what they really think is "We can do it because we're American".

[WastedWizard]

I hope a country nukes American cities when there at war and see how they like it :).

[MwnciHead]

But there were also, other reason for using atomic warfare. This is fundamentally to do with the arms race between the USA and the former USSR. Americans were keen to prove themselves victorious over the Communist regime of the USSR by being the first to successfully detonate nuclear weaponry.

indeed - infact there were 2 spies in the manhattan project feeding info back to the project going on in the USSR to create thier own nukes.

a big part of the allied push for nulear weapons came before the surrender of the germans in europe - it was feared (possibly a little too feared - they weresome way off and had made some poor assumptions) that the nazi's were trying to create atomic bombs, and they wouldnt hesitate to use them. i am sure that the manhattan project bennefitted from personnel and materiel made availiable following the capitulation of nazi germany. the logic was somthing along the lines of "given a choice between our side destroying the world or the enemy destroying the world, we want to be the ones to do it first"...

good background reading

[Ejit]

fucking don't post more

[dontkillkenny42]

At 10/31/09 01:25 PM, WastedWizard wrote: I hope a country nukes American cities when there at war and see how they like it :).

You do know that we have technology that can take nukes right out of the air, right? And we had a good reason to nuke the Japanese. They never would've surrendered because the military leaders lead the Emperor to believe that they were winning every battle, we used the nuke to save millions, possibly billions of lives.

[dalmo]

At 10/31/09 01:25 PM, WastedWizard wrote: I hope a country nukes American cities when there at war and see how they like it :).

I hope you learn how to read a whole thread before you post. You may like it :).

[WastedWizard]

At 10/31/09 01:30 PM, dontkillkenny42 wrote:

At 10/31/09 01:25 PM, WastedWizard wrote: I hope a country nukes American cities when there at war and see how they like it :).

You do know that we have technology that can take nukes right out of the air, right? And we had a good reason to nuke the Japanese. They never would've surrendered because the military leaders lead the Emperor to believe that they were winning every battle, we used the nuke to save millions, possibly billions of lives.

No you don't, Patriot missiles have a 50% chance of hitting a missile, and then they might hit a decoy.

[AnasaziTribal]

At 10/31/09 12:48 PM, SgtBrainDead wrote: if we did not use the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki we would have lost over 1 million marine lives invading japan and that`s not even counting the civilian casualties. so yes it was right to drop those two bombs

You're a fucking idiot, do some research before you formulate a bullshit response.
WE HAD ALREADy BOMBED 67 JAPANESE CITIES BEFORE WE DROPPED THE BOMBS.
They were already considering surrender and we had a larger military force than them, too.
Also, there were NO MILITARY OUTPOSTS IN HIROSHIMA OR NAGASAKI.
Just civilian casualties.

[BabiesAteMyDingo]

The Jap has proved to be too proud an infestation to combat with conventional warfare any longer, the only means to completely remove this threat from our horizon is total annihilation through the use of atomic weaponry.

The above is your thesis. And whilst it is strong, the only feedback I can now suggest is that you my have a hard time finding an argument which disproves this theory, since matters of pride are opinionated and will differ from each nation's point of view.

Why would you want to argue against your thesis? Well it makes for a better argument and gives two sides to the story. And an un-biased thesis will make for better reading, and can be appreciated by a wider audience.

But having said that you could just turn around now and tell me what your counter argument is....and then it looks like you have a successful thesis here. You should do well.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 10/31/09 01:37 PM, AnasaziTribal wrote:

Link would suffice.

[dalmo]

THIS IS NOT MY PERSONAL OPINION WHATSOEVER.

Quit getting butt hurt over a paper I am writing for a class. It is to be written in the time of 1945. We are suppose to pretend that we are generals and what have you from that time. None of this is personal opinion get that through your thick skull.
This is my first two paragraphs.

The problem of the Jap is now more present than ever before and is a threat on the horizon, no longer can America cannot sit idly by and wait for another Pearl Harbor. We are a strong nation and the only one capable of finishing the fight against this threat. The Jap has proven to be too proud an infestation to combat with conventional warfare any longer, the only means to completely remove this threat from our horizon is total annihilation through the use of atomic weaponry.
The use of the atomic bomb would save the lives of countless Americans by removing the need for invasion. The estimated casualties of American lives as accounted by General MacArthur's staff estimated 23,000 within 30 days and at least 125,000 after 120 days. Invading the Japanese is a foolish idea. We would be fighting them in their own homes, in their neighborhoods; in the very backyard they bred their children to hate America in. To wage a war in a land so unfamiliar would be unnecessary knowing that America possesses a weapon with the means to end the war swiftly and quickly with minimal loss of life. As one can read in the Japanese Invasion plan "Downfall" the invasion plan would be against a relentless enemy who "will continue the war to the utmost extent of their capabilities and will prepare to defend the main islands of JAPAN with every means available to them"

[xXCostelloXx]

We need to drop it to set ourselves a name. were not as amazing as we used to be. Amarica used to be known as the unstoppable millitary force and freedom and blah. now were known as the fatest asses in the world.

[WastedWizard]

At 10/31/09 01:47 PM, xXCostelloXx wrote: We need to drop it to set ourselves a name. were not as amazing as we used to be. Amarica used to be known as the unstoppable millitary force and freedom and blah. now were known as the fatest asses in the world.

You want to kill civilians to give your country a name?

You typing this from a padded room in a hospital for people with sub 10 IQ's?

[Idiot-Finder]

At 10/31/09 01:48 PM, WastedWizard wrote:

You want to kill civilians to give your country a name?

You typing this from a padded room in a hospital for people with sub 10 IQ's?

I think they have forgotten to give him a straight-jacket.