Dennis Kucinich, a representative from Ohio, in the persuasive text titled “We didn’t need to drop the bomb”, posted online in 2015, addresses the topic of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Kucinich supports the claim that the bomb was not needed to end the war, although some may disagree. The author’s overall purpose in the article is to persuade the audience that the atomic bomb had a negative effect due to the effect it had on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The author, Kucinich, also adapts an informative tone because he states facts and evidence to support his claim that the bomb was not needed to win the war. In short, I strongly disagree with the author because the bomb needed to be dropping in order to end the war. The bomb needed to be …show more content…
One fact related to the controversial bombing act, is the fact that today, North Korea is threatening America with bombs and missiles. This fact can relate back to the bombing of Hiroshima, because it is a similar situation. An example of the United States proved their power, which has been mentioned throughout the entire essay, is where we were attacked first and retaliated with two nukes that allowed the United States to prove many points, but set an extensive debate. In the online article, “Bomb North Korea before it’s too late”, the author, Jeremi Suri, states North Korea may attack us such as Japan did, therefore we must bomb them first. As we can tell from past bombings, this may not be such a well-thought idea. It would support the claim that the United States is the most powerful country, but it would more importantly start much controversy throughout our country, and maybe even a war. In the end, bombing helped America win World War 2 and prove we are a very powerful nation, but bombing in the present day is not as important, because there is much lesser need for it. We have proved we are powerful, but only use our power when needed, as shown in the bombings of Hiroshima and
Bomb: The Race to Build - And Steal - The World’s Most Dangerous Weapon was published on September 4, 2012. It was written by American author Steve Sheinkin. The book is not a story about the Atomic Bomb, but it is the story of the Atomic Bomb. Steve Sheinkin retells the story of the Atomic Bomb and important events involved with the bomb so it is easy to understand for the reader, rather than creating a story around it. He uses real interviews and testimonies from first hand witnesses, as well as primary sources of information, including FBI and government documents.
In The Winning Weapon? : Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima, author Ward Wilson attempts to make the argument that Japan did not surrender from WWII because of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. But rather that the invasion of the Soviet Union was the deciding factor in their withdraw. He then uses this argument to indicate that our views on nuclear weapons, and how they affected Japan’s military decisions is incorrect. Wilson begins his argument looking at the Japanese’s military and political standing prior to the bombing of Hiroshima.
The controlling nature of John Proctor towards those who work for him also reinforces the statement made by Vowell. Although Proctor is considered to be a good man, he reveals a tendency to be controlling towards his servants. When Mary Warren comes running towards the Proctors’ home after attending the trial, John Proctor tries to force her to testify against Abigail Williams in court. He says, “You will tell the court how that poppet come here and who stuck the needle in” (Miller, Act 2). Proctor is very menacing as he delivers his dialogue.
Truman and the A-bomb The drop of the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the following Japanese surrender on September 2nd was the way Truman and the United States ended the bloodiest war ever fought in history. Nowadays there is a lot of speculating on whether or not the president chose the best option by using doing so. Although there is still a strong moral controversy about the bombing, this writer’s opinion is that Truman made, after all, the best thing among his other options. Just saying that dropping the A-bomb was the right thing to do is not enough without the proper explanation.
The residents of Hiroshima, Japan began their day routinely on August 6, 1945. Some commuted to work or school, some sat down to read a newspaper, and some tended to the needs of their children. At exactly fifteen minutes past eight in the morning, all aspects of life as known to the city’s population of two hundred and forty five thousand people were decimated within an instant; it was an instant in which the first atomic bomb was dropped from an American plane, killing nearly one hundred thousand people and injuring another one hundred thousand more. In its original edition, John Hersey’s Hiroshima traces the lives of six survivors, beginning a few minutes prior to the bombing and covering the period directly thereafter. When the bomb detonates, the Reverend Mr. Kiyoshi Tanimoto, a community leader and an American-educated Methodist pastor, throws himself between two large rocks and is hit with debris from a nearby house.
With a demonstration it would for one, give the Japanese proof of the bomb and two, show them how destructive the bomb is. Furthermore, an attack on civilians is not regarded, despite the extent they are involved in the war effort. The military is a force that knows that they are putting their life on the line for their country, willingly making a commitment and understanding death is a possibility. However civilians are entirely different, as their involvement in war is scarce. They cannot be considered necessary to a war effort.
Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary? It was necessary for the United States to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. Truman’s decision to do this was because of the american lives, the Pearl Harbor in general, and bringing an end to it all. This all began when Japan attacked the Pearl Harbor and, for precautions, the U.S. Interned Japanese people here in our country.
In the twentieth century, the United States dropped two atomic bombs, which were the most powerful weapons at that time, on Japan. It happened on August 6 and August 9, 1945. The atomic bombs killed 226,000 Japanese and ended the war. However, America should not have dropped the atomic bombs for two reasons. First, it was not necessary to drop the bomb to win the war militarily or to get the Japanese to surrender.
Name: Course Instructor: Class: Date: Critical Book Review: Prompt and Utter Destruction Introduction Within weeks, word on the US dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki began to spread that the main reason behind the bombs was to save the lives of Americans (Bernard). It was put that hundreds of thousands of American military causalities were saved through the bombings.
the bomb’s code name was “Little Boy”. Three days later, on August 9th, 1945, America dropped another bomb on Nagasaki with the code name “Fat Man”. As many as 200,000 deaths were caused by “Little Boy” alone and many people would die of radiation for years to come. The dropping of the Atom bomb on Hiroshima is an extremely debatable issue with no right or wrong answer. In this essay I will describe both sides to the argument then conclude using my final opinion on whether I am for or against the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima.
In Geoffrey Shepherds Article he tires to support, connect and persuade his audience. In “It’s clear the US should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki”, he tries to persuade the audience that the atomic bomb should have never been dropped. Shepherd attempts to persuade his audience by using emotion throughout his article. In his article he states “The bombings probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians and maimed untold more.
The author believes that the bombs were dropped too quickly, but the U.S. was just trying to get to the point of ending World War
By stating this, it reassures American society that the decision to drop the bomb was not a terrible decision. Furthermore, Truman also uses a didactic/serious tone to educate and persuade the audience about the bombing and the bomb itself. For example, Truman states, “The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. And the end is not yet.
President Truman was treating people even worst by putting them through the torture of the bomb and the resulting effects of the bomb. Time became a major factor into the decision, and dropping the bomb was a result of that fear. On the other side of the argument, the Japanese did bomb Pearl Harbor which was the catalyst that got America involved in the first place. We as a country should not need to compromise with the nation who started the battle.
Theoretically of course, what if a country was to develop a weapon strong enough to completely disintegrate cities and all the people living in it? Coincidently, the United states discovered a bomb that did exactly that and ended up thrusting the world into a new era of weaponized technology towards the end of World War II. Countries from this point on became wary of opposing the United States, aware of the power they possessed, especially since the US had already used this weapon on Japan to end the war.