The Dropping of the Atomic Bomb - Period 1 by Raymond Lopez

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:36:32 UTC

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:36:45 UTC

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:36:53 UTC

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:37:04 UTC

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:37:10 UTC

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:37:19 UTC

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:37:25 UTC

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:37:34 UTC

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:37:41 UTC

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:37:47 UTC

Directions:

rlopez296 — 2023-03-14 03:46:10 UTC

You are responsible for posting four (4) thoughtful, supported comments on the questions posed.
For each post, start with your name (this is so it does not come up as anonymous).
Be sure to use evidence (cite documents) in your post.
When responding to another person's post, refer to them by name. Use the following as possible sentence starters:

A) I agree with Clarence, however...
B) I think you have made a good point Darlene, but I might add...
C) While I can see your position Dexter, I must disagree because...
D) I like your reasoning Bonnie, but...

Marisol Santa Maria

400022760_1 — 2024-03-07 02:11:55 UTC

By dropping the bomb, Americans (in accordance to document F) believed that they could scare Japan into an unconditional surrender. According to document H, many believed that if they didn’t drop the bomb that it would have been a big waste of time and money. I believe that the motives were justified, as President Truman claimed he wanted to use any means necessary, and also wanted to (according to document H) scare the Soviets into not fighting the US.

Emmanuel Martinez

4000229411 — 2024-03-07 02:13:28 UTC

In Document H, the motivation for the bomb being dropped is to end the war a lot quicker. The justification is to save American lives and not waste the large amount of money spent on the project

Marisol Santa Maria

400022760_1 — 2024-03-07 02:13:59 UTC

The US dropped the second bomb so soon after the first one because they wanted to scare Japan into an unconditional surrender (according to Document F).

Marisol Santa Maria

400022760_1 — 2024-03-07 02:15:21 UTC

If one chooses to believe that the Japanese would not have surrendered without the use of such violent acts, then yes, the use of the Atomic Bomb was necessary. However, in Document F, people argue that the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki was senseless violence that just killed more people than actually caused surrender. In document H, General D. Eisenhower believed that the Japanese would have surrendered regardless of the atomic bomb's use and saw it as immoral to drop the bomb without any forewarning to the citizens. Therefore, I do not believe the use of the atomic bomb was necessary to end the war.

Marisol Santa Maria

400022760_1 — 2024-03-07 02:22:13 UTC

The opinion on whether or not to drop the bombs has changed so much since the end of WWII because we now understand the effects of such a weapon only AFTER the bombings have occurred. According to document B, people who were near the bombs but weren't immediately or gravely injured) could likely experience devastating conditions YEARS after the bombings, such as leukemia, thyroid/breast cancer, or even severe cataracts that left many people blind. We see the consequences years, even decades after the bombings, and will be reminded of how truly horrific this creation was.

Emmanuel Martinez

4000229411 — 2024-03-07 02:31:04 UTC

In Document f, it says that the reason as to why there were two bombs were dropped on Japan, Japan would've done a suicidal attack against American troops, causing millions of deaths

Lily Avalos

400022627_1 — 2024-03-07 02:48:38 UTC

According to Document H, the goals for dropping the atomic bomb were to obtain an advantage over the Soviet Union, save American lives, stop a perceived waste of resources, and fast terminate the war. Although there were those who justified these arguments based on military and strategic considerations, Document A shows that there were internal discussions among American authorities over the bomb. Admiral Leahy was against it because of the bomb's indiscriminate civilian losses, while James Byrnes supported its deployment as shock value.

Lily Avalos

400022627_1 — 2024-03-07 02:49:12 UTC

According to Document I, Japan's defiance of the Potsdam Declaration and its refusal to submit led to the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki, three days after the bombing of Hiroshima. Despite moral objections from prominent officials such as Secretary of War Henry Stimson and General Eisenhower, the decision was made to hasten Japan's submission and avert a large-scale invasion.

Lily Avalos

400022627_1 — 2024-03-07 02:54:06 UTC

In addition to being fundamentally unfair, deliberately attacking civilians during the atomic bomb war presents serious moral questions. The objection of Admiral Leahy, as documented in Document A, highlights the bomb's indiscriminate impact on non-combatants, which runs against to the ideals of just warfare and human rights. The story of Survivor Yoshitaka Kawamoto in Document H highlights the moral conundrums regarding the justice of such actions while graphically illustrating the terrible results for innocent bystanders. People who are not involved in making war decisions, known as civilians, are often the victims of conflicts that they did not initiate. Furthermore, Document H's recommendation for a protest as opposed to an instant attack raises doubts about the propriety of openly attacking civilian populations and raises ethical issues with combat tactics.

Lily Avalos

400022627_1 — 2024-03-07 03:02:15 UTC

Yes, as stated in Document I, on August 15, 1945, Emperor Hirohito of Japan declared his country's unconditional surrender in World War II, citing the atomic bomb's deadly force. According to Document I, the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a major factor in forcing Japan to submit to an unconditional surrender. The idea that unconditional surrender was required to bring about the conclusion of the war is supported by the background of Japan's determination to fight to the very end and its rejection of Allied pleas for surrender, as seen in Document I.

Emmanuel Martinez

4000229411 — 2024-03-07 03:42:42 UTC

It is important to not look with morals of the present day, but from that time. Yet in document H, there were scientists that were against dropping the bomb since it would kill a lot of civilians

Emmanuel Martinez

4000229411 — 2024-03-07 04:03:40 UTC

The bomb dropping in Japan should be remembered by how destructive it was and a danger of nuclear weapons

Lily Van Diest

2024-03-07 05:13:01 UTC

There was a long list of motives for dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan. Some of those include ending the war with Japan to save American lives and to gain advantage of the Soviet Union. As the war continued to progress, America was losing more and more of its soldiers. By dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, the number of American lives lost would decrease. The other motive the United States had was to drop a weapon so giant and powerful that it would give the U.S. an advantage over the Soviets in shaping the postwar world according to the point section in Document H. I do not believe that these reasons are just enough to drop a bomb, however. I do understand the viewpoint they are coming from but the motives are not logical and moral enough. To save a small number of American lives, one has to kill a majority of Japanese lives. Most lives of whom are not even fighting in the war itself. It is not a strong enough motive to kill so many people.

Lily Van Diest

2024-03-07 05:18:48 UTC

It is morally wrong for civilians to be targeted in a time of war. While many civilians may believe in their country's opinions and actions taken in war, the civilians themselves are not helping or fighting in this war. Document G brings an eye-opening viewpoint to this situation as it writes about a boy by the name of Yoshitaka Kawamoto. He was a student at a middle in Hiroshima as well as a victim and eyewitness of the first bombing. This 13-year-old boy had to endure the pain of watching his entire class die within an instant. This is unfair and not the right way to deal with a war.

Lily Van Diest

2024-03-07 05:23:40 UTC

It is acceptable to impose our moral opinions on historical events such as the dropping of the Atomic bomb. As we educate ourselves on the history of this event that ended a world war, we need to put ourselves in the shoes of victims or those experiencing this event. General Dwight D., as stated in Document H., believes that dropping this bomb was unnecessary and as a supreme allied commander his moral beliefs outweighed his military viewpoint. This is highly acceptable for us to break down such an event and make our opinions on the pros and cons of the historical event.

Lily Van Diest

2024-03-07 05:26:47 UTC

The dropping of the Atomic bomb should be remembered as an influential, controversial, and historical event. Document F breaks down the bombings as both victimization and a triumph. I believe that is exactly how we should remember this event.

Lily Jimenez

400022778_1 — 2024-03-07 06:15:11 UTC

According to Document H, there were several motives in dropping the bomb. One of these motives was to end the war against Japan. Truman and his advisors wanted to use this weapon to save American lives. However, they also did not want the project to be viewed as a big waste of money. This put pressure on Truman's decision to drop the bomb because if he chose not to then America would have used so much money on something that was not put to use. American officials also believed dropping the bomb would give the US an advantage over the Soviets in shaping a postwar world. I believe the motives were not justified because I do not think it was necessary to end so many innocent lives that were not necessarily participating in the war. I agree that America needed to gain power and have an advantage, which was achieved, but I do not think it was done in the right way.

Lily Jimenez

400022778_1 — 2024-03-07 06:26:26 UTC

Document F states that the reasoning for why the US dropped the second bomb so soon after the first was so that the US could instill fear upon Japan. This fear would force Japan into an unconditional surrender. When dropping the second bomb, the US was not allowing Japan to attack American troops and for more American lives to be lost.

Joaquin Arciaga

900022222_1 — 2024-03-07 06:44:57 UTC

According to document F the decision to use the bomb made the war was both for the most part dangerous put overall made It safer for America as we held possession of such a threatening weapon. When looking at it through a victimization lens it calls to the mind the death of families and acquaintances on distant battlefields and more vividly the prolonged systematic bombings of their cities. When looked at through a triumph lens brought a end of a horrendous global conflict and shows how it has prevented another war. So overall it was safe decesion for America but to the other countries it was dangerous.

Lily Jimenez

400022778_1 — 2024-03-07 06:55:07 UTC

The dropping of the atomic bomb should be remembered as an influential historical event but also as a learning opportunity. We learn history so that we can attempt to prevent history from repeating itself. I do not believe the dropping of the atomic bomb and the lives that were lost with it should be thought of being repeated. Document F describes the dropping of the atomic bomb as victimization and a triumph. It is described as being a triumph due to the fact that it put an end to a horrendous global conflict. I believe this is the good in the dropping of the atomic bomb because it put a stop to many more lives that could have been lost.

Lily Jimenez

400022778_1 — 2024-03-07 07:07:46 UTC

It is fair to impose our moral judgement on historical actions/events because this allows us to grow and learn from the past. It is obvious that any individual in present day would have a different opinion on the dropping of the atomic bomb if they lived during that time period. This is because living in that moment and in that fear definitely causes shifts in your opinions and views. I believe that the dropping of the atomic bomb was over the top in the sense that so many innocent civilians lost their lives or loved ones. Document H states that there was a petition signed by 70 scientists that it was immoral to drop an atomic bomb without warning. Many others had this same opinion so it is fair for us to now recognize the rights and wrong in the actions and events that occurred.

Joaquin

900022222_1 — 2024-03-07 07:20:29 UTC

The dropping of the bomb should be remembered how the atomic bomb can be used even if it isn't to bomb other countries. The bomb itself can be used as a threat and change the other countries perspective on us. It should be remembered how much control and power America has.

Joaquin A

900022222_1 — 2024-03-07 07:25:52 UTC

In document A it states how they opposed using the bomb because it killed civilians indiscriminately. They believed that an economic blockade and conventional bombing would convince Japan to surrender.

Joaquin A

900022222_1 — 2024-03-07 07:30:27 UTC

In document A it states President Truman later wrote that he “regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubts that it should be used.” Although it is important to stay morally true it is a military decision

Sean Lenning

400023054_2 — 2024-03-07 16:24:19 UTC

I think the use of the atomic bomb can be looked at in many ways but, for America at the time it was the best option. Now it could have been avoided but at what cost? How many more lives would we lose if we didn't drop them?

Sean Lenning

400023054_2 — 2024-03-07 16:38:09 UTC

There were multiple motives for dropping the bomb such as of course ending the war. Other than that, America had been working on the "Manhattan Project" for quite some time and did not what to waste their time and money just to not use it (Doc H). The final reason is that the dropping of the bomb was a showcase of power to have an upperhand on the Soviets (Doc H).

Steven Alarid

400018560_1 — 2024-03-07 16:43:41 UTC

I think it was a necessity to end the war. I say this because since the Americans gave them a chance to surrender and threatened them, they basically just did what they said they were going to do.

Charlize Hoffert

2024-03-07 16:45:37 UTC

I would say that the way they used the bomb wasn´t necessary considering that they had other options to use the bomb to have a similar effect. Though I do believe that it was necessary to end the war because it had a big enough impact to shock the Japanese into surrendering. It even said in Doc F that the Japanese were not going to surrender and that in order for them to, they needed a big enough reason to stop.

Steven Alarid

400018560_1 — 2024-03-07 16:45:49 UTC

The motives were for ending the war, not waste money, and show the power that we had over the Soviet Union. We wanted to stop losing lives and the bomb was a solution. And we would have also lost a lot of money if we hadn't used it. Finally, the Soviet Union was getting irritated and getting distressed with America and we needed a method to show them that we are in the power.

Charlize Hoffert

2024-03-07 16:47:18 UTC

America ´ s motives they justified in dropping the atomic bomb was to end the war, that it would be a huge waste of money, and that it would stop the tension that was rising from the Soviet Union. (Doc H).

Sean Lenning

400023054_2 — 2024-03-07 16:48:31 UTC

The opinion on the dropping of the atomic bombs has changed so much since they were actually dropped because of what we hear about it. In document G, we were able to read about a 13 year old boy's experience with the bomb being dropped on Hiroshima. He explains in detail gruesome things he saw like his best friend on the edge of death with multiple body parts completely unrecognizable. Another reason why opinions have changed is that we weren't actually there to experience it so what do we know about the emotions and feelings they felt?

Charlize Hoffert

2024-03-07 16:49:52 UTC

The opinion to drop the bombs has changed a lot since the end of WWII to present day because we have had time to think on the matter and we don´t have people dying so it doesn´t affect our judgement or our choice in the matter. It isn´t the matter of life and death. It is hard for us to feel the pain and anger that was happening that led up to that decision.

Steven Alarid

400018560_1 — 2024-03-07 16:51:48 UTC

They dropped the second bomb so close to the first bomb for multiple reasons. They didn't want the Japanese to come attack them and come together to form a plan. Also, they did not want them to have a chance to recover.

Charlize Hoffert

2024-03-07 16:52:21 UTC

I don ´ t believe it is fair for civilians to be targeted during a time of war because I believe it is wrong to fight someone who is vulnerable. Many civilians died from the radiation of the bomb and they were defenseless. It is also morally wrong to kill civilians in a time of war even if they are manufacturing weapons, some just need to provide for their family. (Doc G)

The United States most likely chose to drop the second bombing on Nagasaki after Hiroshima in effort to both destroy military factories in those cities, and to show the power the United States held if the Japanese continued to not agree to surrender

Xavier Jimenez

2024-03-14 00:34:19 UTC

One main reasoning for why the opinion on whether or not the bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima should have been dropped is due to the look back of the war, and how many innocent lives and destruction was caused because of those two bombs. As we look back on WWII, we show more humility on the aspect of death and warfare that has happened throughout history and modern day warfare

Xavier Jimenez

2024-03-14 00:37:16 UTC

It is not fair for in times of warfare, to seek out the destruction of innocent civilians, as these people have no connection to any disputes or ally, yet are targeted to show power and destruction, whether The Holocaust or the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, these are acts of showing both power and destruction in times of war, yet civilians were the main targets