Many historians argue against the atomic bomb. Here's why.
ArgumentsAn explosion in a less populous area would have scared Japan into a surrender. Using the atomic bomb in an area with a high civilian count was unnecessary and devastating.
|
CounterAt the time of the bomb, America only had two atomic bombs. The bomb may not have had the right effect on the Japanese and they might have not surrendered. It was too chancy to waste a bomb on a show in a less populous area.
|
The bomb had unknown effects- there was no way of knowing what could have happened. The bomb should not have been used because the effect on the human population was questionable.
|
Had the bomb not been used, many more lives would have been lost. The last resort of the United States would have been to invade Japan, and the American and Japanese casualties would have been higher than the casualties that the atomic bomb caused. Regardless of the outcome of the bomb, the only other option would have been more disastrous and would have killed more people.
|
The bomb was a violent display that should never have been used. It killed many innocent people and injured even more.
|
The bomb, while killing many, showed the war the effects of atomic weapons. Showing how catastrophic they are will make a nuclear war in the future less likely, saving thousands, perhaps millions, of lives. Had we not used the bomb and shown the world it's potential, nobody would have known how devastating atomic bombs can be.
|
Japan was willing to surrender before they dropped the bomb, just not unconditionally. The Japanese wanted to keep their government.
|
The Japanese followed a code of Bushido, meaning that they would die before surrendering. Even if a surrender occurred, the only way to avoid another war was an unconditional surrender, so that they're military could be contained. The Japanese people would not heed the American's warnings to surrender unconditionally, so the bomb was necessary in a final ending to the war.
|