=_= I asked this before and all people did was give me arguments for the OPPOSITE (Conservative) side and tell me to switch. I understand you people have opinions but I can't help that I'm ASSIGNED a certain side that doesn't agree with you. If you can't look at the liberal POV to help me expand my points then don't bother answering, please.
"Ok so I'm researching what questions they will ask. We argue the bombing was wrong, they will argue that it was right.
Can I get some help/expansion on these arguments? And are there any other arguments I should know about that they'll use against us?
1) The Japanese didn't accept the unconditional surrender, so we needed to bomb them.
-> I'm going to argue that the military didn't accept unconditional surrender but that this doesn't reflect what the civilians thought about it. + The civilians were being controlled by the military. So there was no reason to bomb the civilians
2) If we didn't thoroughly defeat Japan, we might have another situation like Germany after WWI. If Japan gets too bitter they'll rise up and start a WW3
-> I don't know how to argue against this one
3) It saved more lives than it took
-> I would argue that it took innocent Japanese civilian lives, PLUS radiation sickness resulted in genetic disorders for the future generations. The US would have lost 40,000 lives invading Kyushu, but at least soldiers in the US army b/c they join knowing that there was a chance they would die whereas Japanese civilians probably weren't ready to die / or get radiation sickness."
Bookmarks