Throughout the course of this debate you have heard many statements suggesting that the drop of the bomb was unprecedented and inhumane.
Largely, it has been suggested that there were better, alternate way of defeating Japan without the use of Little Boy and Fat Man. Suggestions of such include allowing Japan to keep their emperor, waiting for Russia to invade and take over, or defeating Japan through a land invasion.
First and Foremost, Why not keep let Japan keep their emperor? It was clear through how the emperor was only willing to surrender after the dropping of the bombs that he didn’t care as much about his people. Tokyo and other Japanese cities had been under continual firebombing and the emperor had kept pushing.
If Hirohito was concerned about his people, he would have surrendered long before the Japanese people were in such dire circumstances. It would seem …show more content…
They needed a new government; a new system and way of thinking that we were able to reshape in the process of helping Japan rebuild after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Finally, in the broad spectrum of people who died in the war, 58% of WW2 deaths were allied civilians, while only four percent of the death% compared to the 4% of deaths were Axis civilians. The remaining 38% were military personnel, but think about it. Over half of the casualties were allied civilians, while only four percent were Axis civilians. This is astounding.
We seem to emphasize to much how so many people died due to the bombings, yet we are looking at a fraction of the number of civilians who died, many of which were not even fighting on the same side as Japan. Japan killed more civilians than the US ever did; and yet we speak of Japan as though it were a helpless country who were the only nation to suffer so severely, the only nation worth remembering because of the people who died ending the
Largely, it has been suggested that there were better, alternate way of defeating Japan without the use of Little Boy and Fat Man. Suggestions of such include allowing Japan to keep their emperor, waiting for Russia to invade and take over, or defeating Japan through a land invasion.
First and Foremost, Why not keep let Japan keep their emperor? It was clear through how the emperor was only willing to surrender after the dropping of the bombs that he didn’t care as much about his people. Tokyo and other Japanese cities had been under continual firebombing and the emperor had kept pushing.
If Hirohito was concerned about his people, he would have surrendered long before the Japanese people were in such dire circumstances. It would seem …show more content…
They needed a new government; a new system and way of thinking that we were able to reshape in the process of helping Japan rebuild after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Finally, in the broad spectrum of people who died in the war, 58% of WW2 deaths were allied civilians, while only four percent of the death% compared to the 4% of deaths were Axis civilians. The remaining 38% were military personnel, but think about it. Over half of the casualties were allied civilians, while only four percent were Axis civilians. This is astounding.
We seem to emphasize to much how so many people died due to the bombings, yet we are looking at a fraction of the number of civilians who died, many of which were not even fighting on the same side as Japan. Japan killed more civilians than the US ever did; and yet we speak of Japan as though it were a helpless country who were the only nation to suffer so severely, the only nation worth remembering because of the people who died ending the