0
Why do many people still argue about the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in 194?
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
some say that truman wanted to send a message to the soviet union
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What three natural rights did Locke argue that all people possess?
To be born free, equal and independent.
What was W E B DuBois Exhibit of American Negroes?
To fight the racist idea that Africans were primitive
How has the church bombing in Birmingham affected the US today?
We argue about black and whites
What did anti-protectionists argue was a harmful effect of tariffs?
Higher prices of foreign goods
What was the purpose of du bois's exhibition of American negroes?
To argue against negative ideas.
Why do people still argue about the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan?
Some say that Truman wanted to send a message to the Soviet Union - Apex
What do many people still argue about the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in 1945?
The attacks ended the war, but killed many civilians and alarmed the Soviet Union. ~ apex
What country does bonsai originate from?
The general opinion is that it originated in Japan although some people argue it started in China then Japan.
Was the use of the atomic bomb justifiable at the time it was dropped in world war 2?
Some people think it was, others argue that it was not.
What occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in 1945?
That's the easiest question ever... Of course the Atomic bombs were dropped, ending the war with Japan. But some argue the second bomb wasn't needed. America didn't give Japan a chance to surrender after the first bomb, because the second was dropped within days of the first.
Who argue against the use of the atomic bombs state that?
Millions will die and the earth will be destroyed.
Those who argue against the use of the atomic bombs state that?
Millions will die and the earth will be destroyed.
Was the atomic bombing of hiroshima unjustified?
Questions like these come down to personal opinion. One might argue that it was a need, where one might argue it was a greed. There is no "correct" answer.
Why America should't have used the atomic bombs?
It is certainly possible to argue that the use of atomic bombs against Japan killed indiscriminately, that it was cruel, that it caused hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer well after the war was over, and that it sets a dangerous precedent for the use of nuclear weapons in the future. However, I also know of excellent arguments in support of the atomic bombing of Japan. I am not going to mention all of them, but remember before you condemn America, that Japan was at war with America by its own choice. America did not even want to get involved in WW II, but was left no choice after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. You reap what you sow.
Why does your boyfriend argue with you then with the people who cause us problems?
There are two interpretations of your question: 1. Why does my boyfriend argue with me first and then argue with the people who cause us problems? 2. Why does my boyfriend argue with me rather than with the people who cause us problems? Which is it?
When was ninjutsu invented?
Well, the origins date back to vagabonds fighting arts in China, but the concepts and the art was originated from Japan. Sadly there are many people who study Ninjutsu that argue over this, but really both answers are correct ... China or Japan.
Why do many people to argue the decision to drop atomic bombs in japan 1945?
In a 1986 study, historian and journalist Edwin P. Hoyt nailed the "great myth, perpetuated by well-meaning people throughout the world," that "the atomic bomb caused the surrender of Japan." In Japan's War: The Great Pacific Conflict(p. 420), he explained:"The fact is that as far as the Japanese militarists were concerned, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of 3,100,000 homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million of them. It was the ruthless firebombing, and Hirohito's realization that if necessary the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day."In a trenchant new book, The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb (Praeger, 1996), historian Dennis D. Wainstock concludes that the bombings were not only unnecessary, but were based on a vengeful policy that actually harmed American interests. He writes (pp. 124, 132):... By April 1945, Japan's leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne. They feared that the United States would depose him, try him as a war criminal, or even execute him ...Unconditional surrender was a policy of revenge, and it hurt America's national self-interest. It prolonged the war in both Europe and East Asia, and it helped to expand Soviet power in those areas.General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."Source: Weber, Mark "Was Hiroshima Necessary? Why the Atomic Bombings could have been avoided" The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 3), pages 4-11.
