Discussion: World War II

Social Studies Discussion

During WWII, were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings justifed or no? State your opinion clearly and be ready to debate.

Ok I like debates

I think we should have because it set America up as a world power and started M.A.D. in the world, Mutualy Assured Destruction. Since everyones destruction is practically guranteed if some one fires a nuclear war head no one is willing to fight a war. In the long run I think it has actually saved more lives because now there are less wars and therefor less casualties.

Straying from it being justified, would you think the use of the nuclear bomb as the best strategy in that situation or no? Could another tactic have been used? (Anyone can answer to any of these questions.)

I think that it was a good strategy. It sent two clear messages. One, it told other countries that we were not afraid to protect ourselves and our allies at all cost. Second, it told us that we should never do this again. Once is enough for a nuclear bomb. The horrifying images of people almost literally evaporating because of the radiation and heat was so moving that was like a firefighter's demonstration, except in real life (you know, when they purposefully fill the gas tank wrong and the car lights on fire or something like that - the message being not to do this). It was drastic, but it was necessary and as fremlinc said, it probably saved more lives than it destroyed.