Atom Bomb

Zach Wise March 16, 2015


In this debate it starts off with someone agreeing that the U.S. should have dropped the bomb. The person then listed several ways that Truman could have ended the war but dropping the bomb was the most effective because it would save American lives. Then he says it was the right the thing to do because it made Japan surrender promptly and saved thousands of American lives. In the second half of the article it's someone disagreeing on why the U.S. shouldn't have dropped the bomb. The person goes on to say there were other ways to get them to surrender and not kill so many innocent women and children and that Truman even said that was unnecessary.

Supporting details

Person agreeing- More than 100,000 Americans had already died fighting the Japanese and if it would have continued more would have lost their lives.

Japan surrendered six days after the second bombings which was a fast surrender and saved American lives.

Person disagreeing- 150,000-246,000 people were killed during the two atomic bomb droppings. Many of those were innocent children, women, and old people considering most of the men were in the war fighting.

Truman and several other war generals said it was unnecessary to use such lethal force when the Japanese had basically already surrendered.

Real-World Application

This article is showing us two sides of the story whether it was good to bomb them, or if it wasn't good to bomb them. And one side of the story was emotional towards the U.S. saying it saved lives over here, and the other side was emotional towards Japan saying there were other ways to have ended the war without killing so many of them.

The audience can apply this to their life when making a decision that could effect others in the process. They have to look at both sides on which would be the best option that would hurt less people and still benefit yourself.

Big image