The class calendar is below. We reserve the right to quiz you daily on your reading:) Enjoy!
US AP Calendar
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
11.7.7 - Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Discuss the decision to drop atomic bombs and the consequences of the decision (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by the first atomic bombs. "Many wonder whether dropping the bomb was necessary but others think it was in order to limit the amount of Allied casualties and bring the long arduous war to an end." - http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/education/projects/webquests/wwii/ -Ana C. Per. 5
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks at the end of World War II. "The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians. Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II. (Germany had signed its Instrument of Surrender on May 7, ending the war in Europe.) The bombings led, in part, to post-war Japan adopting Three Non-Nuclear Principles, forbidding that nation from nuclear armament." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
We must think though of the alternate effects that would have taken place if the First atomic bomb had not been dropped during the war. Would the Soviet Union have sent spies over to find out about the struture and functioning of the atomic bomb? Would the creators of The bomb have been pressured to reveal the secrets of the atomic bomb by possiblitity of monetary gain? Would we be in The war in Iraq if the proliferation of these WMD's had not taken place? Was revealing a weapon with the power to destroy an entire city the right decision, when the enemy was already beaten? For the lives that were saved then, we have lost much much more.
It may have brought on relief to the war for the Americans. However, the benefits came at a cost. It may have saved time, money, and many American soldiers from dying, but the dropping of the atom bombs in August of 1945 left the Japanese population crippled for the better part of the rest of the century. The blast and heat, along with debris, decimated nearly half of both populations combined by the end of 1945. Many more were killed by long term effects caused by radiation.
President Truman decided to drop two atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender because it had taken too long for the WWII so we got to end it to prevent another fierce battles and huge destruction and death from happening. It was very effective when many people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dead and wounded because of atomic bombs and the Japanese government immediately surrendered.Anyway, it's not good to killed many people like that but it may be the fastest way to end the war. Hung T. P.1
I enjoyed reading all of these comments so far. I really do think that the ethics of dropping the bomb may outweigh the logistics. Perhaps it was better to end the war quickly, but perpetuating the stockpiling of nuclear arsenal would only occur because of this initial drop revealing the potential power of destruction we possessed as a nation. However perhaps the USSR would have found this technology and arguably this was a devastation waiting to happen if not on Japanese soil then ours. Such ethical issues even are seen today, only instead of massive retaliation we now have coined terms such as preemptive strikes which are both effective and unfortunate that second guessing human decency is now a war tactic. Iraq unfortunately will not be the only preemptive strike we see in our lifetime. My guess is that this is the new way of defeating an old enemy: those who want to stop the U.S. from continued growth and domination.
6 comments:
The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by the first atomic bombs.
"Many wonder whether dropping the bomb was necessary but others think it was in order to limit the amount of Allied casualties and bring the long arduous war to an end." - http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/education/projects/webquests/wwii/
-Ana C.
Per. 5
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks at the end of World War II.
"The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians. Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II. (Germany had signed its Instrument of Surrender on May 7, ending the war in Europe.) The bombings led, in part, to post-war Japan adopting Three Non-Nuclear Principles, forbidding that nation from nuclear armament."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Neslee O. P3
We must think though of the alternate effects that would have taken place if the First atomic bomb had not been dropped during the war. Would the Soviet Union have sent spies over to find out about the struture and functioning of the atomic bomb? Would the creators of The bomb have been pressured to reveal the secrets of the atomic bomb by possiblitity of monetary gain? Would we be in The war in Iraq if the proliferation of these WMD's had not taken place? Was revealing a weapon with the power to destroy an entire city the right decision, when the enemy was already beaten? For the lives that were saved then, we have lost much much more.
It may have brought on relief to the war for the Americans. However, the benefits came at a cost. It may have saved time, money, and many American soldiers from dying, but the dropping of the atom bombs in August of 1945 left the Japanese population crippled for the better part of the rest of the century. The blast and heat, along with debris, decimated nearly half of both populations combined by the end of 1945. Many more were killed by long term effects caused by radiation.
Abraham Z.
Per.1
President Truman decided to drop two atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender because it had taken too long for the WWII so we got to end it to prevent another fierce battles and huge destruction and death from happening. It was very effective when many people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dead and wounded because of atomic bombs and the Japanese government immediately surrendered.Anyway, it's not good to killed many people like that but it may be the fastest way to end the war.
Hung T. P.1
I enjoyed reading all of these comments so far. I really do think that the ethics of dropping the bomb may outweigh the logistics. Perhaps it was better to end the war quickly, but perpetuating the stockpiling of nuclear arsenal would only occur because of this initial drop revealing the potential power of destruction we possessed as a nation. However perhaps the USSR would have found this technology and arguably this was a devastation waiting to happen if not on Japanese soil then ours. Such ethical issues even are seen today, only instead of massive retaliation we now have coined terms such as preemptive strikes which are both effective and unfortunate that second guessing human decency is now a war tactic. Iraq unfortunately will not be the only preemptive strike we see in our lifetime. My guess is that this is the new way of defeating an old enemy: those who want to stop the U.S. from continued growth and domination.
Post a Comment