To Bomb Japan or to Not? Chapter 29

Thursday (4/23) during class we divided up into two groups, those for America bombing Japan during WWII to end it and those against it. Although many of us were for bombing Japan, I chose the against side. My formal opinion was for it, and clearly many others opinion matched mine when we got up to move to our sides and only a few students were against it. So, I decided to join the against side to even out the teams (even though the teams were still not even, but that's okay). While collecting our thoughts for our debate that will be held Friday, I realized how many other options we had that would have less killing the innocent and maybe even more land. If America could control the Nazi party and many countries in Europe, how come America could not control Japan, who is smaller in size, without the a-bombs? Emily W. brought this point up in our discussion and I thought it was a very good point to make. Less lives would have been killed, especially the innocent people who live in Japan and want nothing to do with the war their leaders dragged them into. Another point that I brought up was the situation Japan was in when America warned them to surrender. When someone tells you to surrender or give up, you want to fight against them to show you are not weak and will not willingly be picked on by someone bigger or older, like siblings. America told Japan to surrender and they chose to fight instead because they did not want America to think Japan could be controlled so easily. Unfortunately for Japan, they could not defend themselves against an a-bomb, but they refused to surrender. Was America's act of bombing an alpha dog act? I think so because even though America wanted to end the war, the a-bomb would be a 50/50 chance of ending the war since no one could foresee the outcome of the bombings. Today during class was the actual debate, where many of us voiced our opinions. I thought overall it was a success, even though no side won because both sides gave good points. The against side said instead of using an atomic bomb, why not starve them out? The other side said that would take too long, the money would go to waste, and Japan would do nothing for their civilians since they did not exactly care about them when USA sent a "heads up" note saying we were going to bomb them. Our point was that then they would run out of food and have to surrender because we would basically starve them out of options. I said starvation is easier to recover from than radiation poisoning which can be passed down the family line. Even today there are most likely still people suffering in Japan from radiation poisoning from World War II.