The Pros And Cons Of US Invasion Tactics

652 Words3 Pages
WWII was the bloodiest conflict in human history, but some would say that the U.S invasion tactics were too far or just necessary. In my opinion I feel that you have to show dominance to others for them to see that you mean business, but I don’t agree with the pulverizing innocent civilians to their deaths. With the intentions of a US invasion was debated within the US military (US Army was for, US Navy was against) the general judgement by the Battle of Iwo Jima and Battle of Okinawa is that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would be costly. With a deterrent to the USSR, the Soviets invaded Manchuria on August 9, 1945 only 3 days after the Hiroshima bombing and 9 hours before the Nagasaki bombing. The US were aware that the. It was an attempt to end the war before the Soviets could occupy significant territory as well as showing the USSR that the US was in possession of nukes.…show more content…
Hiroshima and Nagasaki already being classified as a civilian city. With knowing that the invasion would cause a genocide which was frowned upon the civilians during war time. But why is it that the Germans were hanged at the Nuremberg Trials for the bombing of civilians at Rotterdam, on the basis that it was a war crime, doesn't this mean nuking civilians is a war crime because necessary they weren’t among this dispute. As thousands of civilians suffer from the effects of radiation to this day, nuclear radiation causes genetic defects in the human body. Thus, it is not just those who were there who suffer, but their children as well. The effects are not just physical health, but also discrimination in their daily life. Is it right to reshape the civilians lives into something they can’t control with their peers looking down on them because their child is born with a genetic
Open Document