I need help preparing an opening statement for my atomic bomb debate?????

Question

I have a debate on the atomic bomb and whether or not if the dropping of the atomic bomb was a good decision.

I am a mother of the American soldiers and I support the dropping of the atomic bomb. My main three points are:

-Japan was eventually going to attack the U.S and they werent planning to give up since every person from the young to the old was armed

-their major objective was to protect the Americans

-In the war of Nanking they tortured the poor Chinese civilians and the American mothers did not want that to happen

-it would end the war faster so that the AMericans could come home

I need to choose atleast three main arguements for my opening statement. My points are not very strong....help me find some more strong points to argue for the dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan...n help me write the opening statement...if ne1 has a sample opening statment please send it to me thx

Answer 1

#1.  The Japanese themselves agreed that the bombing was the most appropriate method of ending the war.

#2.  The US Government was so sure that our losses invading Japan would run in the Millions, that they struck a million purple hearts for the expected casualties.

Those Purple hearts were awarded throughout WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Honduras, Panama, and both Gulf Wars.

The medals we award today were struck in the 1940's for the invasion of Japan.

There is no argument, none, for not dropping the bombs.

Answer 2

You may actually want to start out with the fact that we (Allies) were planning to invade Japan (not that Japan was going to eventually attack us)...this would have cost (literally) millions of lives.

The bomb was seen as a way to quickly and decisively end the war by inflicting destruction and the fear of destruction.

Answer 3

visit http://detikvideo.com/nagasaki

Answer 4

The war was costing a lot of money.  Look how much this one in Iraq is costing us now.  If one or two single bombs would end it  there and then, it sure makes a lot of economic sense alone.  Did you see " Flag of our Fathers" ?  The government had a hard time coming up with the money to run the war (unlike nowadays where they've mortaged our great-grandchildren).  The A-bomb was cheap.

Answer 5

1.  The need to physically 'test' for the future developement or dismanteling the most unknown demon weapon of all time.

2.   Anger at Tokyo over the cowardly sneak attack which

caught so many of our loved ones off guard and took their

lives...we would have used any weapons we had and we did!

3    The drawback to the deal was so many innocents were

hurt or killed...those are a beautiful people and to see so

many burned and deformed by the heat and fallout is heartwrenching!  (I can hardly write this without having tears well up and I pray to God Almighty, this never has to happen ever again)!

Answer 6

Here are some points and comments to consider:

1)  Japan had already attacked the U.S.  In addition to Pearl Harbor they sent balloon bombs targeting the West coast population and killing innocent civilians.

2)  Bringing the war to a rapid close to save lives on both sides.  

3)  There is no such thing as the war of Nanking.  Japanese forces were brutal and oppresive across the territories they controlled including abuse of prisoners and civilians including the events known as the Rape of Nanking.

4)  There was a limited amount of nuclear weaponry so we couldn't afford to do a "demonstartion" bombing that the enemy might have ignored.

5)  A technological advantage is only as good as it lasts and had we not used our advantage (despite the horrendous loss to civilian Japanese populations) the war could have turned back in Japans favor or simply dragged on.  For example we had an initial advantage in the Korean War, but this was reversed as China became involved.

6) It's important to know your opposition's argument.  The Geneva convention and morality suggest targeting a civilian population is immoral.  However, there was no military target that would achieve the same object of bringing the war to a rapid close.  This saved many lives on both sides.  Let's also remember that Japan was the aggresor and could have ended the war sooner.  Is it moral to send more troops on both sides to their deaths when our technogy allows us to act in a way that demonstrates superiority and ends the war early?

I also think you should include your personal angle as a mother of soldiers.

Answer 7

Germany their Ali was building the bomb so we used it first in self defense