Paul Furssell's Use Of The Atomic Bomb Justified

I don 't think the other 3 options would have worked to make Japan give up. Even though Truman didn 't want to use the atomic bomb on a populated area I think it 's a good idea because that what made them

This means that they didn’t bleed whenever they got cut open. Then they decided to use a method of cauterizing an area infected with extraterrestrial bacteria using a nuclear device called, the 7-12 directive. The directive has not yet worked but they are hopeful that they can resolve this killer. Quote Analysis:

Not all the Japanese were a target as well, just the military. Yeah this was bad, but it could 've turned out worse if we didn 't do it. This was an experiment, the bomb was never used before and it could’ve been worse too. What if Japan decided to bomb us? Or attack us somewhere sometime else?

Thesis statement: Though many speculate that the act of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) while not doing so on Europe (Germany and Italy) was racially motivated, racism played little to no role in these bombings. The United States of America and her allies were willing to end World War II at any cost, had the atomic bombs been available they would have been deployed in Europe. In the 1940’s there is no doubt that the United States of America was engulfed by mass anti-Japanese hysteria which inevitably bled over into America’s foreign policy. During this period Japanese people living in both Japan and the United States of America were seen as less that human. Japanese-Americans living on the west coast were savagely and unjustifiably uprooted from their daily lives.

The use of the atomic bomb in World War II was a horrifying site. Although the use of the first bomb on Hiroshima may be justified the use of the second bomb on Nagasaki was not. The use of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a necessary step towards winning the war with Japan. The dropping of this bomb saved many American lives that would have most likely been lost in the war effort had we decided not to use the atomic bomb. The dropping of this bomb also showed the Japanese that we were not afraid to do what was necessary to win the war and that they should surrender while they had the chance.

In the case of the Manhattan Project, scientists without prior working knowledge and scientific experience would not have successfully been able to produce a nuclear weapon. As the documentary shows, the experienced scientists working together were able to put forth the working knowledge that would be difficult to not only verbally describe but also difficult to transcribe (tacit knowledge). Both Zillard and Fermi came together with their different approaches, thinking styles and methods, allowing for them to both apply tacit knowledge with each other and their teams. Although General Grove’s was warned against hiring Oppenheimer as the head at Los Alamos lab, his managerial style is quite possibly one of the reasons of success among the scientists.

We gave them multiple chances, and even then it still wasn 't enough time for us to have really considered what would happen to Hiroshima. By taking into consideration of other people, we will be able to avoid more catastrophic events like Hiroshima from happening again in the future. The decision to bomb Hiroshima is one of the most inhuman things America has done. “A hundred thousand people were killed by this bomb.” These were innocent lives lost to Americas inpatient decision to end the war. There have been arguments about how Japan couldn 't even deal that much damage to us at that point in the war that make bombing them seem like a wanted thing.

Statistics are known to be biased, and his statistics are picked to justify and push this theory. Pinker doesn’t consider that his American perspective and our way of life colors his beliefs. He doesn’t mention the possibility of massive destruction of humanity in a way there could never have happened before the invention of nuclear weapons. He feels our sense of responsibility for democratizing and civilizing the world influences our ability to have empathy and compassion, become less selfish and vengeful and therefore violence has declined dramatically. People have experienced a broadening sense of community, global interdependence and our global society.

For example Jonah Lehrer, who is author of the “Groupthink” article, says in his text taht “Although some group conversations will occasionally be unpleasant, that does not mean that they can be avoided. (9)” At this point, I totally disagree with Mr. Lehrer because as I said before even a small disruptive effect on the creative individual can demolish all the work he created alone. These effects can appear to us as uninportant, however, these bad impacts on original ideas can extinguish wonderful ideas. For instance; Max Planck, who invented Planck Quantum Theorem that uncovers the secrets of universe was humiliated by other scientists. Eventually, even Planck started to not believe his own theorem because of other people’s bad impacts.

In the aftermath of 9/11, countries have now elevated domestic threats as being an equal consideration to the engagements of other countries, supporting international diplomacy. However, it could as be argued that 9/11 had not represented a paradigm shift in international politics due to the fact that a lot of the pre-existing debates within IR were hardly affected by the September 11th attacks. Most certainly, the 9/11 terrorist attacks had shocked the entire world and triggered a paradigm shift in every country. However, it did not represent a paradigm shift in international politics as that of the Cold War era in which the United States’s paradigm was the model on which other states were patterned, which could then be argued as not representing a paradigm shift in international