The Pros And Cons Of Using An Atomic Bomb

The Japanese were already on the verge of surrendering, so there was no point on dropping the bomb. Also, President Truman could have just shown an image or chart of the atomic bomb, rather than actually going through with the plan. These examples illustrate how the atomic bomb will always be a big controversy, but America was right for dropping the

One of the most controversial events from World War II (WWII) was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On August 6, 1945, America dropped the world’s first atomic bomb, code name “Little Boy, over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion resulted in over 90,000 deaths. August 9th, 1945, a second bomb was dropped, code name “Fat Man”, on Nagasaki, instantly killing an estimated 70,000 people. On August 15, Japan surrendered unconditionally. President Truman decision to drop these atomic bombs on these cities changed the course of history and modern warfare. After this pivotal moment begun an arms race to develop the most nuclear bombs between many nations. The decision to drop the atomic bombs over Japanese cities had to involve a lot of pros and cons. This paper will discuss the reason why the bombs were dropped, how historians look back on that decision, how the culture of the time affected that decision, and what, in my opinion, was the deciding factor. “It is an awful responsibility that has

There were three arguments that usually marshalled against the use of the atomic bomb. The first reason was the bombing of Japan was considered to be racist, the second reason was that it was pointless, and the third reason was because it was done purely for political effects and had more to do with the Soviet Union then the war in the Pacific. The bomb was dropped because the American wanted revenge because many Americans died because of the Japanese. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed and wounded from the years of ghastly firebombing. They also decided to drop the bomb was because they wanted to compare if the uranium or plutonium type bomb was stronger, so they dropped the uranium bomb in Hiroshima and the plutonium bomb in Nagasaki.

Document 33 shows a propaganda shows the amount of damage the bombs would do, Japan still did not surrender. Another piece of evidence is document 71: I know the Japanese intimately. The Japanese will not crack. They will not crack morally or psychologically or economically, even when eventual defeat stares them in the face. They will pull in their belts another notch and fight to the bitter end. Only by utter physical destruction or utter exhaustion can they be defeated. That is the difference between the Germans and the Japanese. That is what we are up against in fighting Japan.”(Joseph Grew, former ambassador to Japan, 1945). This document conveys that the Japanese wouldn’t back down after multiple warnings, instead they were getting stronger, and therefore the atomic bombs were justified because they were given fair warnings that they did not take it

In fact, Ralph A. Bard, Undersecretary of the Navy wrote to Secretary of War Stimson in a June 27, 1945 memorandum. “I define this decision as an emotional and reckless decision, Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender” (Bard). In fact, the Japanese government expressed desire to end the war, and would have accepted conditional surrender before the mainland invasion in November. The reason for dropping the bomb was forcing Japan to surrender unconditionally. In America’s opinion, Japan had lost the war; they did not have any capital to negotiate with. Japan had to accept unconditional surrender; if they disagreed with that request, America would drop the bomb. What made the Japanese surrender was the retention of their emperor; anything else couldn’t have forced a Japanese surrender, including the attack of the atomic bomb. As Japan's Prime Minister Suzuki spelled out on June 9, 1945. “Should the Emperor system be abolished, they [the Japanese people] would lose all reason for existence…. [and have] no choice but to go on fighting to the last man” (Butow). The Japanese could not live without the emperor's life; the emperor to them was God. The retention of the emperor system would not do harm to the United States.The United States should have used a more sensible way to solve

The dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was the end of WWII. However, there has been much conflict considering the use of the bomb. In this essay, I will discuss reasons from both sides of the argument and justify my opinion.

Many projects around the United States worked on the race to create the atomic bomb. One project, The Manhattan Project, led by Julius Robert Oppenheimer, created enough U-235 to create one of these deadly weapons. The Atomic bomb should be eliminated and banned around the world to stop the potential destruction of our world.

President Harry Truman gave an executive order in 1945 to drop to atomic bombs in popular downtown cities in Japan. With the guidance of many scientists and political leaders President Truman made the extremely tough decision to drop the bombs. After listening to arguments from both sides President Truman came to the conclusion that dropping bombs would be the best thing to do for this war. It would also show that the United States had an extreme military power. Many American politicians were for the idea of dropping the bomb, because they believed that it was the only way to end the war and get Japan to surrender. Giving them other options at this point seemed useless. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were killed when the bombs

There are many reasons why it could be argued that the dropping of the atomic bomb was justified. One reason is that Japan was warned, they were given plenty of opportunities to surrender such as the Potsdam declaration. The Declaration was issued to Japan by President Truman and the Allies of America after America had tested the Atom bomb on July 26th. The declaration was a proposition of surrender to Japan that linked directly to the dropping of the atomic bomb. If Japan agreed to the declaration, America would not drop the atomic bomb and Japan would

Imagine being put in a predicament whereby you have to make a crucial decision, either by dropping bombs to save countless lives or to let the enemy proceed on brutally killing thousands more…What would you do?

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.

I believe Truman was right in his actions of commencing the dropping of weapons of mass destruction against the Empire of Japan. While morally it may have been carried out in a better way, that's a debate for a different time. There are three reasons I would like to clarify to show why I believe it was the right decision.

In the United States, it is often taught that the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the deciding factor for the Japanese to surrender during World War II. However, upon closer inspection that may not be the reason why. For example, by the time both cities were destroyed Japan had already lost dozens of cities to American fire bombs and conventional raids. As a result, the only difference between the cities that were previously burned and Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the type of weapon used. Therefore,the Japanese government was aware and accustomed to loosing cities and large number of civilian lives. On the other hand, the inclusion of Russian forces in a war against Japan was new and could have possibly had more weight when

By 1945, those involved in the Second World War were exhausted. There had been millions of casualties, millions were still suffering and countries were in turmoil. After six years of war, those involved were ready for it to be over. By the end of 1944 the Axis had collapsed. Once Germany unconditionally surrendered on May 8, 1945, the Allies were hoping Japan would surrender too. However, Japan was keen on fighting till the very end. As a result, the war was not over. The Allies had to make a decision how to conquer Japan and end the War. The end result was the use of the atomic bomb. Although there is controversy around the use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the use of the bomb is justified because it ended the Second World War.