The Pros And Cons Of US Invasion Tactics

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 War of 1812 and the urge that the War Hawks had to declare war on Britain caused social, political, and geographical changes between the years 1812 to 1815.

It has probably happened many times in life when you take actions and someone gets mad or doesn 't agree. Then you must come up with any reason possible to make it justified, but sometimes not everything can be justified. For example, a person murdering a random person they have never met before and do not know, can’t be justified. The actions that the U.S took during the Cold War are similar to this, as they weren’t always justified. Some of the actions that the U.S. took was the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, going into nations that were controlled by the Soviets to fight back, and had the wrong motives. The United States actions during the cold war were not justified, because of the motives that they had behind their actions which were selfish and did not think about everyone else, these actions also caused more aggression.

The end of World War II should have marked a period of relief in America but instead, it lead America into a completely different type of war called the Cold War. The Cold War was an ongoing state of political and military tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. This constant state of tension and fear had been embedded deep in the American public. The American people feared the spread of communism and nuclear war in the aftermath of the Second World War, while President Eisenhower addressed these fears by having strong domestic and foreign policies.

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. Second, America dropped the bomb not to win the war and save American lives, but to show its power to the Soviet Union.

The bombing of Hiroshima was the right thing to do due to the military lives that were going to be lost if the bomb did not get dropped, America also wanted to impress Russia or intimidate them by dropping it and the president saw this opportunity to make japan surrender as well. This all supports the main point on why it was the right thing to do but many to all Japanese say otherwise

The dropping of the bombs were necessary and fair due to the refusal of the Japanese to surrender, the millions of lives saved by a quick end to the war, and the warnings given to the Japanese. To begin, the Japanese soldiers have it ingrained in their brains that it is dishonorable to surrender. The author of Drop the Bomb as agreed by saying that “the Japanese have demonstrated a willingness to fight to the death”. During the war there were many times for the Japanese to surrender, but it was never done. With this in mind, they would have continued to drag out the war, which shows that dropping the bombs sped up the war which lessened the casualties. Jane Runyon stated that “some civilian leaders even declared the bombs a good thing”. These leaders concluded that if the war continued without the bombs at least a million

Imagine that there is a decision to be made to launch the atomic bomb or not. The bomb was launched but was it justified? Years ago during WWll, a scientist Albert Einstein sent a letter to the president. It said that Germany was creating a bomb that would cause major destruction and the United States had to make one as well. Scientists started making the bomb and it became the Project Manhattan. Soon the U.S was attacked by Japan. The President then decided to drop the atomic bomb to end this war and quickly. The use of the atomic bomb on Japan was justified because it ended the war, was a better alternative than the others given, and helped save lives.

The atomic bombs were launched in order to show superiority. They detonated on less than 5 seconds causing a collateral disaster in the cities that received the impacts. On the impact corresponding to Hiroshima 80000-people died, leaving after the bang a desolated city. It was not taken into account the innocent people who lived there, they just were killed for power. For example, a kid, who could have offered a lot of things to humanity was, murdered without mercy. Besides, there was another bomb that exploded in Nagasaki where another 40000-people died owing to the war. It is possible to see some silhouettes on the buildings of people who died because of the shock wave. To sum up, innocent people were murdered due to the fact that were launched atomic bombs; it was not taken into account if they had any participation in the world

In this essay I start off by summarizing what the U-2 Incident was all about. The hook of the introduction is pretty whack. There is a lot of lovely background information with a well thought out thesis statement.

On December 11, 1941 Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japanese, more than 360 Japanese warplanes. They came and bombed our harbor killing more than 5,000 people. After the bombing America had a suspicion that maybe there was a spy, so they put more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans in an internment camps. I feel that internment camps were not necessary though because of that action we were thought of as racist, harsh, and dis loyal.

From 1939-1945, or otherwise know as the duration of World War 2, an estimated 2,600,00-3,100,000 civilian and military casualties fell upon Japan as the years slowly dragged on. The two nuclear bombs, Fat Man and Little Boy, killed a combined total of 129,000-226,000, while the entire incendiary campaign only killed 300,000 and injured 400,000 more, and with those numbers the pure lethality of the nuclear bomb is clear. Since the United States Government knew about the radiation and its effects, the nuclear bombing of Japan in World War 2 can be defined as unjustified war crimes.

The Civil War. The Napoleonic Wars. The Hundred Years’ War. The Vietnam War. The Korean War. America’s Revolutionary War. The Great War. All of these wars were filled with terrible suffering and thousands of deaths, but one could be considered the most catastrophic of them all: World War II. Many horrendous events took place in those six years, yet none were as devastating as what happened in August 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with a nuclear blast so powerful people over two miles away burst into flames. War brings things like this to the world, but for some people, the atomic bombings seemed to go too far. Others believe the atomic bombs were the only way to end the war. This question is still being debated today: Was dropping the atomic bombs during WWII justified?

Kennan 's 'long telegram ' and ideas on Containment are what is thought to have been a major factor in the transition from alliance to Cold War between the Soviets and the US. Below are outlined some of Kennan 's key points on the sources of Soviet Conduct such as Communist ideology and the potential ways for the US to deal with the Soviets, including the idea of 'containment '.

War is undesirable however it still takes place for the world the states are in are anarchic in nature. During such conflicts states gain and lose territories. Then what do states do with the new land? It is highly unlikely for them to simply raze the area and even more unlikely to give it back to its original owners. They will hold it for the time being, get as much out of it in the process then choose how to proceed this is known as military occupation. To be more specific, according to David M. Edelstein, associate professor working for Georgetown university, military occupation is the temporary control of a territory by another state that claims no right to permanent sovereign control over that territory. The occupying force not intending to