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.
Harry Truman ordered atomic bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after the Japanese declined in a surrender. I am going to have to agree with Truman, only because if he did not attack, the Japanese may have seen the US as a weak country and attack us even more. The United States' atomic bombs create 5x more of an explosion than most other countries bombs. The one part i don't agree with Truman is that he should have attacked an army base, or naval base. Our bombs create a deadlier explosion because we focus more energy into the atom, and i believe it shouldn't have been dropped on innocent lives.
I agree with Harry Truman's justification of dropping the atomic bomb because it shows that the United States is a strong country and that we will fight back. However, i believe that there are safer and less extreme measures that should be taken before dropping hte atomic bomb, like military intervention, or impossing economic sanctions on Japan. Also, i feel that the bomb opened up the new era of the threat of nuclear fallout and war.
i agree with Harry Truman's decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it shows the the United States of American as a whole, will fight back and is willing to defend itself if necessary. But, i believe that there are safer and less damaging ways of getting what you want, when you want it. Some ways could include military invasions, or treaties to non-violently get what we want. I also feel that it created a new "level" of war which is nuclear war. So i agree and disagree with his decision.
I don't completely agree with Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs because I'm sure that innocent people were killed in the bombings. But the bombings do show that America does have powerful weapons, and that America will do something if a country tries to mess with us.
I don't agree with the action Truman took, I think it was important to show that America will fight back but it shouldn't have been in a way that killed many innocent people. I don't belive that violece is solved with more violence. -kelly hayden
I both agree and disagree with Harry Truman's Decision. I think that after the pearl harbor attack the united states felt the need to show we are strong and can't be taken down without a fight and i believe the bomb showed that. I do not like the consequences of having to harm innocent lives by doing so though. the bombing could have been more effective if it destroyed a military base or something similar. -Morgan Sattler
I agree with Truman's desicion. While I my self am a pacifist, I do believe that when your country is endangered you must act in self-defense. Although the only flaw that I saw was that we dropped the bomb on a city crawling with women and children. I beleive it would have been much more effective to drop the bomb on a more militaristic part of the country
I agree with Harry Trumans desicion to drop atomic bombs because it shows that the U.S is strong and that they can fight back. The United states believed that they had a reason to fight back however i think they could have handled it in a different way, something less tramatic. But if the U.S did not attack they would be seen as week, and that wouldnt have helped them.
I believe that the dropping of Atomic weapons on Japanese soil was the correct decision. The problem was, the japanese were advancing, and had terrible ability to cause a great deal of harm to the US and to the allied forces. There was also the fact that with the new nuclear capability, governments and people really had no idea of the damage it could cause. I believe that the American use of the weapons was smart because i think that someone would have eventualy used them without knowing the terrible destruction they could cause. Even though the dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, and horrifing events, America was at war and was willing to do anything to protect its people. Afterall who said war had rules? Or what size bomb can be dropped?
I think that dropping the bomb on the two Japanese cities was not necessarily a good thing but the best option we had . For one I'm not sure if we knew how weak Japan was but if we didn't do something,they would have. (Look at what happened in Pearl Harbor when they knew we were neutral).And secondly we didn't really know how powerful it was going to be and that it would destroy as much as it did. So yes i do believe it was justified.
i think dropping the bomb was not needed. but at the same time i think it was. the bomb killed many of innocent people who had nothing to do with that was going. since so many people hate our country i believe we have to do what we can to defend ourselves. i also think we could have handled this situation in a better and less violent way.
i think that harry truman has justified reasons to allow the dropping of the bomb. it showed that the US would put up a fight to save their people and it also shortened the war. however, research says that it may have just been a military tactic and the bombs were dropped for no other reason. i think there are other ways of getting people's attention other than violating the enemy's territories.
i agree because if the US didn't drop the 2 atomic bombs the japanese would have kept attacking us and the war would have gone on much longer than it should have. Plus we weren't just sending a message to Japan that we weren't messing around with them we were sending a message to Germany and every other country that we weren't to be messed with and if we are we will fight back just as hard or even harder
I disagree nor agree. Both sides have had many wrong doings. The bomb was absolutely not necessary yet it was at the same time. The bomb has killed many Japanese civilians. I believe that we could have used different methods of solving this problem instead of being straight forward and just bombing people that had no faults.
I agree and disagree with Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb. I agree because if he never choose to drop the atomic bomb then the Japanese would have continuously attacked the US and the war would have been drawn out far longer than necessary. Although, I disagree because while saving the US he also killed many of innocent people in the process, but then again so did the Japanese.
I agree and disagree with Harry Truman's decision in dropping the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. I believe it was a good decision because of America's hatred towards Japan and it satisfied the American people with a sense that the Japanese suffered consequences for their actions. Also, it was a solution that would end the war successfully and in the earliest time possible. By dropping the bombs, people got the sense that the effort and expense towards building the atomic bombs was worth it. However, I disagree because although it may have seemed like Japan suffered the consequences, the innocent people of Japan suffered greatly, and they were not responsible for their countries actions. Violence is not the answer, and in my opinion, it only intensifies tension and hatred, which is a huge step back from a more perfect society and world.
I think he was justified in dropping the Atomic bomb. We showed that we are strong and not weak. I feel that it was wrong to drop it on innocent lives. Our government could of thought of other ways but this is what they chose. Even though we got our point across, many people in Japan suffered. No one wants to mess with a country with deadly bombs. It shows America is very strong.
i agree with Harry Truman's decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it showed the Japanese that we are not weak and will fight back. If Truman did not drop the atomic bombs the the war might have turned out differently and not in the favor of America. I also think that Truman could have dropped the bomb maybe in a more militaristic area instead of a city filled with innocent people. aaron landecker
I somewhat agree with harry truman when he decided to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it was like he was taking control of the situation. It was a way to show people that he new what measures he had to take. People were fearing high U.S. casualties in a land invasion of Japan and this triggered him to fire those bombs. Japan was already weakened by open air raids and flimsy cities. If not for Harry truman dropping the bombs, the united states would have probably been perceived as a weaker country and this proves that we had a backbone and were willing to take everything to the next level.
I agree and dissagree with Truman. I do agree with him because if he didn't attack the Japanese cities, they might have thought the United States was a weak and unpowerful country and feel they have the power to take over us because of our powerlessness. the only part i dont agree with him on is where he dropped it. i dont think it was fair of him to drop it on innocent cities where many families lived. i think he should have dropped it on an army base or some where where soldiers and weapons were kept to weaken their military structure instead of hurting the innocent, powerless people in the cities.
I agree with Harry Truman's decision on droping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it showed that, us americans arent weak and are willing to fight back. However, If Truman did not drop the atomic bombs the the war might have turned out differently. I also believe that Truman should have dropped the bomb in a more militaristic area instead of a city filled with innocent people and young children.
i think it was justified in the fact that it was aimed towards the military production plants their, that were making bombs,warships, and tanks
but it was morally incorrect that the effects of the bombings are still seen today in radiation poising and the punishment of the workers and no-military personell
i have a mixed opinion on the decision to drop the bomb. We showed that we were in control and that we were not to be messed with. I dont not think that we shpould have killed so many people, because we couldve just fought the army. I also think that it made a bad impression because maybe in the future we will be nuked and I would not want that to happen while i am alive.
The role of the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan's surrender and the US's justification for using them is still a subject of debate today. After all, these are the only offensive attacks that have been made with nuclear weapons in history. On one side of the argument, Truman was justified in dropping the bombs. The US along with a few other countries issued the Potsdam Declaration which stated that if Japan did not surrender, it would face utter destruction. Japan initially rejected the ultimatum, which directly led to Truman's decision to drop the bombs. This side argues that it was Japan's fault that it was bombed. The US issued its warning and Japan chose to reject it, thus at the same time, opening its arms to the possible consequences. Also, this side argues that the bombings were necessary and caused the Japanese surrender. It prevented massive casualties on both sides as there was to be a planned invasion of Japan in the coming months. However, the other side argues that Truman was not ethically justified in dropping the bombs. This side says that "it was simply an extension of the already fierce conventional bombing campaign" (Wikipedia). Therefore, they argue that the bombings were completely unnecessary and that it is seen as immoral, a war crime, and a form of state terrorism. I believe that Truman was justified in acting on Japan's rejection of the declaration, however I believe that other less-destructive measures could have been taken.
In one way i agree with Harry Truman's decision in dropping the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 because the U.S. needed to show that it was a strong country and was willing to go to lengths to stand up for itself. It also needed to prove that it was not a country that was all talk no action. But in other ways I disagree with his decision because many innocent lives were lost. It is completely wrong for innocent civilians to be killed for something that there government is doing when they might not even believe in it themselves. Therefor I have mixed feelings about Harry Truman's decision.
I agree that it was justified. If the bomb hadn't been dropped there is no saying how much longer we would have fought the Japanese or how many more of our own troops would have died before we could end the war with japan. The atomic bomb may have been more cruel to use but in the end it saved the lives of both many American and Japanese soldiers in the war for the pacific
I agree that it was justified. WE could have fought the Japs until they bombed us, but we needed to bomb them first. I think that they would have nuked NYC or Los Angeles and we all know that would've ended horribly.
Harry Truman is viewed as either one of the top presidents or one of the worst based on his decision on this matter. I think he made the right decision and many of us could not handle the decision that he had to make on this subject. Based on his decision he saved countless lives, and ended the war. After bombing Japan the 2nd time at the Nagasaki naval base, Japan was forced to surrender. This gave the Allied powers an advantage in the war, because with Japan out less supplies could get to such countries as Germany, the result of which could have meant we lost the war. By putting an end to the war he allowed many of the remaining soldiers to return home to their friends and families and regain their lives. In forcing an end to the war with his atomic bomb decision, he allowed many countries to rebuild and improve their armies and industries. This "great war" mostly took a toll on the industries. As more men went to war, more materials and supplies were needed, but as more men went, there were fewer men to supply these necessities, especially at the pace needed. Thus, many countries were running low on supplies. Putting an end to war saved many from starvation, and again saved lives.
Harry Truman was viewed as one of the most popular presidents and one of the worst based on his "decision". personally i think he made the right decision that many of us couldnt handle;he had to make on it based on subject. After bombing Japan for the 2nd time at the base in Nagasaki naval, Japan was forced to surrender. This gave the Allied powers and more advantages in the war, with Japan out of supplies they wouldnt get into such countries like Germany, as a result it could have meant we lost the war.
Harry Truman ordered atomic bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after the Japanese declined in a surrender. I am going to have to agree with Truman, only because if he did not attack, the Japanese may have seen the US as a weak country and attack us even more. The United States' atomic bombs create 5x more of an explosion than most other countries bombs. The one part i don't agree with Truman is that he should have attacked an army base, or naval base. Our bombs create a deadlier explosion because we focus more energy into the atom, and i believe it shouldn't have been dropped on innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Harry Truman's justification of dropping the atomic bomb because it shows that the United States is a strong country and that we will fight back. However, i believe that there are safer and less extreme measures that should be taken before dropping hte atomic bomb, like military intervention, or impossing economic sanctions on Japan. Also, i feel that the bomb opened up the new era of the threat of nuclear fallout and war.
ReplyDeletei agree with Harry Truman's decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it shows the the United States of American as a whole, will fight back and is willing to defend itself if necessary. But, i believe that there are safer and less damaging ways of getting what you want, when you want it. Some ways could include military invasions, or treaties to non-violently get what we want. I also feel that it created a new "level" of war which is nuclear war. So i agree and disagree with his decision.
ReplyDeleteI don't completely agree with Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs because I'm sure that innocent people were killed in the bombings. But the bombings do show that America does have powerful weapons, and that America will do something if a country tries to mess with us.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the action Truman took, I think it was important to show that America will fight back but it shouldn't have been in a way that killed many innocent people. I don't belive that violece is solved with more violence.
ReplyDelete-kelly hayden
I both agree and disagree with Harry Truman's Decision. I think that after the pearl harbor attack the united states felt the need to show we are strong and can't be taken down without a fight and i believe the bomb showed that. I do not like the consequences of having to harm innocent lives by doing so though. the bombing could have been more effective if it destroyed a military base or something similar.
ReplyDelete-Morgan Sattler
I agree with Truman's desicion. While I my self am a pacifist, I do believe that when your country is endangered you must act in self-defense. Although the only flaw that I saw was that we dropped the bomb on a city crawling with women and children. I beleive it would have been much more effective to drop the bomb on a more militaristic part of the country
ReplyDeleteI agree with Harry Trumans desicion to drop atomic bombs because it shows that the U.S is strong and that they can fight back. The United states believed that they had a reason to fight back however i think they could have handled it in a different way, something less tramatic. But if the U.S did not attack they would be seen as week, and that wouldnt have helped them.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the dropping of Atomic weapons on Japanese soil was the correct decision. The problem was, the japanese were advancing, and had terrible ability to cause a great deal of harm to the US and to the allied forces. There was also the fact that with the new nuclear capability, governments and people really had no idea of the damage it could cause. I believe that the American use of the weapons was smart because i think that someone would have eventualy used them without knowing the terrible destruction they could cause. Even though the dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, and horrifing events, America was at war and was willing to do anything to protect its people. Afterall who said war had rules? Or what size bomb can be dropped?
ReplyDeleteI think that dropping the bomb on the two Japanese cities was not necessarily a good thing but the best option we had . For one I'm not sure if we knew how weak Japan was but if we didn't do something,they would have. (Look at what happened in Pearl Harbor when they knew we were neutral).And secondly we didn't really know how powerful it was going to be and that it would destroy as much as it did. So yes i do believe it was justified.
ReplyDeletei think dropping the bomb was not needed. but at the same time i think it was. the bomb killed many of innocent people who had nothing to do with that was going. since so many people hate our country i believe we have to do what we can to defend ourselves. i also think we could have handled this situation in a better and less violent way.
ReplyDeleteLAUREN
i think that harry truman has justified reasons to allow the dropping of the bomb. it showed that the US would put up a fight to save their people and it also shortened the war. however, research says that it may have just been a military tactic and the bombs were dropped for no other reason. i think there are other ways of getting people's attention other than violating the enemy's territories.
ReplyDeletei agree because if the US didn't drop the 2 atomic bombs the japanese would have kept attacking us and the war would have gone on much longer than it should have. Plus we weren't just sending a message to Japan that we weren't messing around with them we were sending a message to Germany and every other country that we weren't to be messed with and if we are we will fight back just as hard or even harder
ReplyDeleteI disagree nor agree. Both sides have had many wrong doings. The bomb was absolutely not necessary yet it was at the same time. The bomb has killed many Japanese civilians. I believe that we could have used different methods of solving this problem instead of being straight forward and just bombing people that had no faults.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb. I agree because if he never choose to drop the atomic bomb then the Japanese would have continuously attacked the US and the war would have been drawn out far longer than necessary. Although, I disagree because while saving the US he also killed many of innocent people in the process, but then again so did the Japanese.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with Harry Truman's decision in dropping the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. I believe it was a good decision because of America's hatred towards Japan and it satisfied the American people with a sense that the Japanese suffered consequences for their actions. Also, it was a solution that would end the war successfully and in the earliest time possible. By dropping the bombs, people got the sense that the effort and expense towards building the atomic bombs was worth it. However, I disagree because although it may have seemed like Japan suffered the consequences, the innocent people of Japan suffered greatly, and they were not responsible for their countries actions. Violence is not the answer, and in my opinion, it only intensifies tension and hatred, which is a huge step back from a more perfect society and world.
ReplyDeleteI think he was justified in dropping the Atomic bomb. We showed that we are strong and not weak. I feel that it was wrong to drop it on innocent lives. Our government could of thought of other ways but this is what they chose. Even though we got our point across, many people in Japan suffered. No one wants to mess with a country with deadly bombs. It shows America is very strong.
ReplyDeletei agree with Harry Truman's decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it showed the Japanese that we are not weak and will fight back. If Truman did not drop the atomic bombs the the war might have turned out differently and not in the favor of America. I also think that Truman could have dropped the bomb maybe in a more militaristic area instead of a city filled with innocent people.
ReplyDeleteaaron landecker
I somewhat agree with harry truman when he decided to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it was like he was taking control of the situation. It was a way to show people that he new what measures he had to take. People were fearing high U.S. casualties in a land invasion of Japan and this triggered him to fire those bombs. Japan was already weakened by open air raids and flimsy cities. If not for Harry truman dropping the bombs, the united states would have probably been perceived as a weaker country and this proves that we had a backbone and were willing to take everything to the next level.
ReplyDeleteI agree and dissagree with Truman. I do agree with him because if he didn't attack the Japanese cities, they might have thought the United States was a weak and unpowerful country and feel they have the power to take over us because of our powerlessness. the only part i dont agree with him on is where he dropped it. i dont think it was fair of him to drop it on innocent cities where many families lived. i think he should have dropped it on an army base or some where where soldiers and weapons were kept to weaken their military structure instead of hurting the innocent, powerless people in the cities.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Harry Truman's decision on droping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it showed that, us americans arent weak and are willing to fight back. However, If Truman did not drop the atomic bombs the the war might have turned out differently. I also believe that Truman should have dropped the bomb in a more militaristic area instead of a city filled with innocent people and young children.
ReplyDeletei think it was justified in the fact that it was aimed towards the military production plants their, that were making bombs,warships, and tanks
ReplyDeletebut it was morally incorrect that the effects of the bombings are still seen today in radiation poising and the punishment of the workers and no-military personell
i have a mixed opinion on the decision to drop the bomb. We showed that we were in control and that we were not to be messed with. I dont not think that we shpould have killed so many people, because we couldve just fought the army. I also think that it made a bad impression because maybe in the future we will be nuked and I would not want that to happen while i am alive.
ReplyDeleteThe role of the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan's surrender and the US's justification for using them is still a subject of debate today. After all, these are the only offensive attacks that have been made with nuclear weapons in history. On one side of the argument, Truman was justified in dropping the bombs. The US along with a few other countries issued the Potsdam Declaration which stated that if Japan did not surrender, it would face utter destruction. Japan initially rejected the ultimatum, which directly led to Truman's decision to drop the bombs. This side argues that it was Japan's fault that it was bombed. The US issued its warning and Japan chose to reject it, thus at the same time, opening its arms to the possible consequences. Also, this side argues that the bombings were necessary and caused the Japanese surrender. It prevented massive casualties on both sides as there was to be a planned invasion of Japan in the coming months. However, the other side argues that Truman was not ethically justified in dropping the bombs. This side says that "it was simply an extension of the already fierce conventional bombing campaign" (Wikipedia). Therefore, they argue that the bombings were completely unnecessary and that it is seen as immoral, a war crime, and a form of state terrorism. I believe that Truman was justified in acting on Japan's rejection of the declaration, however I believe that other less-destructive measures could have been taken.
ReplyDelete- Ben Pilosof
In one way i agree with Harry Truman's decision in dropping the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 because the U.S. needed to show that it was a strong country and was willing to go to lengths to stand up for itself. It also needed to prove that it was not a country that was all talk no action. But in other ways I disagree with his decision because many innocent lives were lost. It is completely wrong for innocent civilians to be killed for something that there government is doing when they might not even believe in it themselves. Therefor I have mixed feelings about Harry Truman's decision.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was justified. If the bomb hadn't been dropped there is no saying how much longer we would have fought the Japanese or how many more of our own troops would have died before we could end the war with japan. The atomic bomb may have been more cruel to use but in the end it saved the lives of both many American and Japanese soldiers in the war for the pacific
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was justified. WE could have fought the Japs until they bombed us, but we needed to bomb them first. I think that they would have nuked NYC or Los Angeles and we all know that would've ended horribly.
ReplyDeleteLATE: But whatever. :)
ReplyDeleteHarry Truman is viewed as either one of the top presidents or one of the worst based on his decision on this matter. I think he made the right decision and many of us could not handle the decision that he had to make on this subject. Based on his decision he saved countless lives, and ended the war. After bombing Japan the 2nd time at the Nagasaki naval base, Japan was forced to surrender. This gave the Allied powers an advantage in the war, because with Japan out less supplies could get to such countries as Germany, the result of which could have meant we lost the war. By putting an end to the war he allowed many of the remaining soldiers to return home to their friends and families and regain their lives. In forcing an end to the war with his atomic bomb decision, he allowed many countries to rebuild and improve their armies and industries. This "great war" mostly took a toll on the industries. As more men went to war, more materials and supplies were needed, but as more men went, there were fewer men to supply these necessities, especially at the pace needed. Thus, many countries were running low on supplies. Putting an end to war saved many from starvation, and again saved lives.
Harry Truman was viewed as one of the most popular presidents and one of the worst based on his "decision". personally i think he made the right decision that many of us couldnt handle;he had to make on it based on subject. After bombing Japan for the 2nd time at the base in Nagasaki naval, Japan was forced to surrender. This gave the Allied powers and more advantages in the war, with Japan out of supplies they wouldnt get into such countries like Germany, as a result it could have meant we lost the war.
ReplyDelete