Ethical Dilemma Of Atomic Bombs

717 Words3 Pages

“We learned to our astonishment that we would not be obliged in a few months to rush up the beaches near Tokyo assault-firing while being machine-gunned, mortared, and shelled, and for all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades, we broke down and cried with relief and joy. We were going to live” (Kagan). These are the words of Paul Fussell, a literary historian who was serving as a soldier during World War II. He was one of hundreds of thousands of young men expecting to take part in the American invasion of Kyushu, Japan. Their lives were spared by President Harry Truman’s decision to deploy the most powerful weapon the world had every seen, and has ever seen since then. Though the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has brought about a great ethical dilemma, many feel that the military use of the bombs was the correct conclusion in the end. While some disagree, many argue that the A-bombs caused Japan to agree to an unconditional surrender, sent a warning signal to the Soviet Union on the brink of another war, and prevented an invasion of the home islands and conflict with a Japanese army that was prepared to sacrifice at all costs. Using the Atomic bombs caused Japan to comply with an unconditional surrender, as well as prevented a bloody invasion. According to Henry Stimson, the Secretary of State serving at the time the bombs were dropped, had America invaded Japan, the fire raids that would have been a major part of the US strategy

More about Ethical Dilemma Of Atomic Bombs

Open Document