I would like to bring up the debate over whether America should have dropped both atomic bombs on Japan.
Although it was a quick way to end the war, what makes us better than the Japanese?
Americans were outraged by Pear Harbor. We knew it was a terrible act and couldn’t believe how the Japanese could kill many people like that.
The irony is that just a few years later we would drop two atomic bombs on them, killing way more people than those who were killed in Pearl Harbor.
What makes us any better than the Japanese? We don’t like how they killed our people, so we kill them in an even more brutal way.
Now, obviously when we are at war with them, we are going to have to kill them. But did we have to drop an atomic bomb their cities full of innocent children and civilians?
Although we did tell them that if they didn’t surrender we would use a type of offense that has never been seen, how could they have really expected something like the atomic bomb?
We flew one, or maybe two, planes over Japan the day we dropped the first one and there was no way of them knowing that we were going to strike.
The key to war is deception. But was it fair to be deceptive when we held a bomb that was going to take out a whole city?
I know that some say that we saved lives by dropping them, but was it really the right thing to do?
The Japanese say it was the second worst act during World War 2, next to the holocaust.
I know that Sun Tzu said not to attack fortified cities and we probably would have had to by pulling another d-day on Japan, but I don’t know if dropping the bomb so deceptively was the right thing to do.
Also, was dropping the last one the right thing to do? Although they hadn’t surrendered, keep in mind the after the second bomb, it was an unconditional surrender. Could we have given them more time to surrender? Should we have warned them better of a second bomb?
The scientists who built the bomb said not to drop it. The political leaders said we should have done it.
Was this Humane?
