I need some immediate help with this essay.

Truman had no justification in using the atomic bomb against innocent people. what gives us the right to kill thousands but persecute murders in our own country. It is the same thing just on a bigger scale. Japan bombed us and I get that, however, why don't we step up and be the better country.

I got to go but I will finish later!!!!!

poop dick butt

This is a tricky one. I agree with the other comment from tyter although i think that he did know and didnt want to use the atomic bombs but others insisted on using it and with a vote that happened with the people it was justified beacuse it was not his decision. Yes he made the call but he made sure that other people were helping making the decision in the vote.

I hope this helps. Just im me back if u want

How can we bomb somebody when we don't even know the entire effects? Truman just started his term and did not look into the side effects of the Bomb. He did go along with everybody else, even though it was not the right decision. He went along with the "lets bomb everybody" slogan to stop the war and end the fear of more hostile take overs. He killed thousands of innocent people in a country that was not even his first choice to bomb. He was going to bomb Germany before Japan. He was inncorrect to bomb Japan just to bomb somebody

I don't think this is a lot of help. sorry!

Originally, i felt the same as Tyter that using the atomic bombs to end the Japanese war was completely unjustified, however, research of the dropping of these bombs has convinced me otherwise. The Japanese were into kamikazi warfare which was basically suicidal and if Americans hadn't dropped the bombs it was predicted that they were going to have to move from island to island killing off Japanese until eventual surrender. Fighting on Okinawa island alone, 80,000 civilians were killed, 110,000 Japanese soldiers, and 40,000 Americans: a grand total of 230,000 people who lost their lives in this brutal battle. Meanwhile, the total dead and wounded in the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki came to 240,000. It is beyond doubt that if these bombs had not been dropped the war deaths on both sides would have been far more. By dropping these bombs, Truman ultimately saved lives.

I think that he was justified in his actions. It was Americas turn to fight, they had done what the said they would do fighting the German front first, and the Soviets were likely to use the same means against the US. It was used to not only get back at the Japanese but to scare the USSR that we knew what we are doing and we will use all means to fight for what we believe in. I don't understand the comment that the Japanese were into kamikazi warfare, I don't know what that is, but I would really like to, so let me know!!

Wow I didnt know this would turn into a argument but i guess this will help. I still agree with Tyter at first i mean but the question asked was it justified. Justified can mean wether or it was a good cause for the people. I also agree with the other people saying that if we didnt do something.. we would of well who knows what Japan (at that time) would do. It leaves us at a large sumption. You also need to remember the only thing they had back then was this new "atomic Bomb" and techinecally (lol cant spell that) they could of dropped 2 more so i do know that they decided and had a mutual agreement on this and again it think it was justified for the Better OF America. although if u mean justified as in for the common world... well it might not be.

The bottom line is for the question... You have to decide which one u agree with in your own mind because this arguement can go on and on. If you remember.. you can never get the question wrong if you proove your position that you stand for.

I hope this helps....

kenpoghi93foul wrote:Justified can mean wether or it was a good cause for the people.

That is not what justified means. In this case, the question asks if the bombing was justified (meaning did Truman have good reason to bomb Japan, not whether or not it was good for the Japanese people, which is obvious).

Mary_herdon.... i said it can.. keyword can as in my cause. Just cause i say something doesent mean that it is that thats why i put CAN. I also did not mean for it to be good for the Japanese people. I ment as it a good cause for the better of america. Then again people have different sides on everything so yea u are right as well but i was not talking about the good for the Japanese people.

p.s I also said justified meaning the better of america.

This is a tough Q but the answer isn't quite as cut and dry as some of these kids are making it out to be. Think about these issues to balance your argument:1. what would have a mailand invasion of Japan cost in terms of American and Japanese lives lost? 2. How long would it have taken to subdue a people that were willing, and arguably able, to fight to the last man in a defensive position? 3. What would have happened if the war had drug on, which a mainland invasion was sure to produce, and then Russia had joined the front (which they had pledged to do on Aug. 8th) and then we would have had the whole communist threat to deal with anew. 4. You can't go back 60 years and justify a decision with today's facts. Yes, radiation has been devistating in the era since, but we didn't know that going in. Our grandkids are going to second guess everything we ever did too and their probably going to come up with much better methods; but is that really fair to we, who have to make crucial decisions NOW? Just some things to think about.