Argument: 2nd atomic bomb on Nagasaki was necessary in achieving surrender
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
- Debate: Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki - pro argument.
Professor of history Robert James Maddox. - "Some historians have argued that while the first bomb might have been required to achieve Japanese surrender, dropping the second constituted a needless barbarism. The record shows otherwise. American officials believed more than one bomb would be necessary because they assumed Japanese hard-liners would minimize the first explosion or attempt to explain it away as some sort of natural catastrophe, precisely what they did. The Japanese minister of war, for instance, at first refused even to admit that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic. A few hours after Nagasaki he told the cabinet that 'the Americans appeared to have one hundred atomic bombs . . . they could drop three per day. The next target might well be Tokyo.'"