War is something that, at this point in history, can be arguably deemed as part of the human condition. For whatever reason, it appears that humans are destined not to get along and that violent conflict is the preferred method of solving issues that arise. Whether it be fighting for the love of Helen of Troy or espousing the likes of God and Allah as a justification, war is one thing that time has yet to see the end of. That being said, it comes as no surprise that academics, scientists, and philosophers alike have taken to attempting to understand why wars happen. A controversial and somewhat debated topic is the concept of the Just War Principles.
There are many differing opinions on the subject of whether the dropping of the atomic bombs was justified. One side, such as people in the US, argue that the dropping of the bombs were justified, as it allowed them to test the bomb and end the war quickly. However, another side which includes many people in Japan and pacifists, argues that the dropping of the bomb was not justified, as the effects of the bomb were too horrific. Even though this essay will be exploring both sides of the argument, the second atomic bomb should not have been dropped on Nagasaki. One of the few reasons that the dropping of the Atomic bombs was justified was the fact that Japan would not surrender.
War is hell. Innocent people die, cities are destroyed and countries get economically unstable. But could some wars be justified? History is based on war. Humans have been fighting each other since prehistoric times; ambitious leaders declare wars to become the most powerful nation in the whole world.
Another reason why the atomic bomb was justified was because Japan was going too far with their attacks towards many countries and they were undefeatable. The only way for World War II to end was to get Japan to surrender. And the way that America decided to do so was to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, hoping for surrender from Japan. America would have obviously used the bomb, because they had around 5 billion dollars developing the bomb, so it would just go to waste if they did not use
This devastating event has led to the debate between whether or not bombarding Japan with atomic bombs was truly justified. Through thorough analysis of reasons for the dropping of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and evidence proving the decision unnecessary, it was determined that the use of the atomic bombs was justified to a small extent. One could argue that the decision to attack the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs was necessary. The bombs had to be dropped in order to achieve American victory and prevent casualties in America and Japan. The goals of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to gain victory with the least amount of American casualties as possible.
This, more than anything, shows just how little anything else would have worked against the Japanese. They barely conceded even after the atomic bomb had been dropped, and that was the biggest threat the Americans had to offer. If they had used invasion or blockade, in addition to making the war last longer than it people were willing to bear it may not have had worked in making the Japanese surrender. The decision may not have been ethical, but then again there is no real ethics behind war in the first place. The only part of
The use of the atomic bomb have been questioned for the past 73 years. Although the United States’ decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the social and economic destruction of Japan, ultimately the bombings were justified as this action led to a quick end to the war and displayed the military might of the United States to other threatening and powerful countries. The creation and use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II was imminent as intense weapons were needed to end the war and coerce an immediate Japanese surrender. The progression towards the decision to drop the atomic bombs is extremely important here. The Allies had been battling a massive war with Japan since 1941.
The idea of saving cutting casualties and quickly ending a bloody war in one display of raw power was tantalizing and irresistible. There is no question as to why Truman dropped the atomic bombs. It clearly had little initial ramifications compared to the copious amounts of advantages it offered for the Americans. Had Japan been given the chance to drop two atomic bombs, based on their behaviour throughout the war, they would have dropped them on American cities. However, just because the Japanese would have done the same to the Americans does not make it correct, but ultimately it justifies it.
After it was fully developed and tested, Harry S. Truman made the decision to drop this deadly weapon on two cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Harry S. Truman was justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan because he saved American lives, crippled Japan's remaining resource cities, forcing them to surrender, and established dominance as a world power. During a meeting in June of 1945, Truman met with Henry Stimson, Secretary of War, and Admiral William Leahy. They
This is important as he completely opposed the justification of military necessity by the government and military using concrete evidence of the government itself attempted to destroy files rather than merely evaluating specific cases which could not give a whole picture of the whole problem as it could be argued as outliers；which makes it irrefutable as it is undeniable that the government had misconducted , giving value to the argument that the degree posed by Japanese-American was not equivalent as there are no concrete evidence of Japanese-Americans being disloyal. However the purpose and content of the source is limited for historian studying the Japanese Internment Camps as it mostly circulates around the justification of Military Necessity; thus had mainly used evidence of false accusation of Japanese-Americans being disloyal and how government files had