In August of 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end the war. President Truman agonized over the decision because it would mean massive amounts of life lost.

What arguments could be made for using atomic bombs to end the war?
What arguments could be made against using atomic weapons in the war?

FOR: These two bombs ended up making Japan surrender in World War 2, which meant many lives saved (which would have ended up being lost in the years of warfare that was prevented by the dropping of the two bombs). These measures had to be taken to end the brutal war.

AGAINST: This type of warfare is called assymetrical warfare. This is when one side has nuclear weapons (harmful to people, the environment, ect.), and the other one doesn't. This type of warfare isn't just, and we shouldn't have dropped two deadly weapons onto innocent civillians for the cause of this war.

Hide Feedback

Possible answers:

1.The loss of life would have been greater if a conventional invasion of Japan occurred.  Japan seemed unwilling to surrender even in the face of almost certain defeat without an overwhelming show of force.

2.It would be immoral to kill civilians who would inevitably be killed in such an attack. Using such a weapon would simply encourage other countries to develop such weapons—this would endanger the whole world.

Explanation:

disequilibrium means that either supply is greater than the demand for an available good, or that the demand for a product outstrips the available supply. it implies that the price for a is either too low creating large demand, or too high creating a large surplus of supply.