Debate on dropping the atomic bomb on august 6, 1945, a single bomb was dropped on hiroshima, killing 80,000 people immediately and about 60,000 more within six months on august 9, a second atomic bomb that ultimately killed about 70,000 people was dropped on nagasaki 1. An argument against reliance on nuclear weapons for four years after the us dropped atom bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki to end world war ii, america held a monopoly on the production of atomic weapons during this period, debate centering on the use of nuclear bombs in future wars proliferated among government officials, scientists. Choices: truman, hirohito, and the atomic bomb | new threats to nuclear non- proliferation choices: truman, hirohito, and the atomic bomb in summer 1945, president truman focused on two choices to end the war with japan: invade or use the atomic bomb truman ordered the bomb dropped on two japanese cities his decision. The atomic bomb debate: examining hiroshima and nagasaki class: ap us history students will be asked to decide if they are “for” or “against” the dropping of the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki students will be prompted with the following questions: - what do you know about the atomic bomb or the science behind the atomic bomb. Best answer: while there are the moral arguments against using atomic bombs on civilians, i believe there is material to use to argue against the practicality of using the atomic bombs in ww2 this was an answer i posted to a similar question recently a number of us military leaders of ww2 disagreed with.
The decisions of the target committee touched off heated debate in the manhattan project atomic weapons and their impact on the world had long been debated among manhattan project scientists leo szilard, james franck and others at the met lab at the university of chicago had other ideas and drew up a broad program that addressed not only the use of atomic weapons against. The argument that decided the debate over using the atomic bomb agains japan in 1945 is this: using the bomb would shorten the war and avoid heavy casualties among. Atomic bomb debate we will have a debate about whether or not the united states was justified in using the atomic bomb to end the world war ii with japan.
The most common form these replies take is that, so far from being acts of state-sponsored mass murder, the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki were humanitarian missions meant primarily to save lives: had it not been for the instantaneous slaughter of some 220,000 people (a conservative estimate), mainly. I feel like our group was really well prepared for this debate, and i feel like i really learned the information through this process i have always really enjoyed debates not only because they are fun but because you are constantly learning new things throughout the debate based on what the other team says.
Arguments against the bombings usually take a moral tack that whatever the ends, it’s never right to intentionally vaporize women and children but in recent years an entire new argument has emerged: bomb or no bomb, the war would have ended anyway below, some things you may not have known about the momentous events of august 1945. Truman's conversations about the bomb were not about society's expectations, but rather on the post conventional thought that dealt with the effects of the use of the bomb, not  whether it ought to be used1 the decision to use atomic bombs against japan was influenced by several factors that are relevant to kohlberg's stage 5 on the moral.
The use of nuclear weapons is contrary to the spirit the dropping of this bomb was a direct violation of the charter of the united nations it would exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction to mankind and civilization and, as such, is contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity. Thank you for presenting arguments against the atomic bombing of japan your interlocutors seem to believe that all arguments against the bombing are mere “nonsense” — even “offensive” — as though the proposition that the mass extermination of civilian populations in time of war is so well established that it no longer requires. Trauma: western historiography of the atomic bomb in debate mario marcello neto (ufrgs) “even though the united states and japan had been locked in the bitterest of wars, the americans who arrived in tokyo.
The bomb would be used as soon as possible, without warning, and against a war plant surrounded by additional buildings as to informing the soviet union, the committee concluded that truman should mention at potsdam that the united states was preparing to use a new kind of weapon against japan. Some historians argue that the atomic bomb was truman's best option to avoid an invasion and prolonged fighting with japan, thereby preventing even more deaths others, though, argue that resorting to nuclear weapons was not necessary and find that japan would have surrendered even if the us had not dropped the bomb. Argument: bombing japan was a war crime against humanity from debatepedia jump to: navigation , search parent debate debate: bombing hiroshima and nagasaki supporting quotations two early critics of the bombings were albert einstein and leo szilard, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written.