bombings on japan, were the really needed |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
bombings on japan, were the really needed |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 664 Joined: Mar 2004 Member No: 7,686 ![]() |
do u guys think the 2 bombs dropped on japan during WW2 were really needed?
i say no because they just killed innoc3nt people in those 2 citys and it left a perment mental damage on my grandma (im japanese) so what do u guys think |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() rookie ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 723 Joined: Jan 2004 Member No: 2,291 ![]() |
from a lot of european countries' point of view, the pearl harbour bombings were necessary because otherwise the united states wouldn't have joined the war and without their help, hitler would have conquered half of europe.
the point of the debate isn't that anyway. it's asking whether the use of nuclear weapons was necessary to make the Japanese surrender. quite clearly, by the stage the bombs were dropped, the Japanese were not going to win the war. however, they would probably not have stopped fighting until each and every part of their military was destroyed. but are "time" and "inquisitiveness" justifiable enough reasons for killing totally innocent people? wasn't it more morally justifiable to kill each and every fighting soldier, rather than civilians, until they surrendered? |
|
|
![]() ![]() |