Weapons Of Mass Destruction Persuasive Essay

597 Words3 Pages
In 1945, World War ll was in full swing and the United States needed a way out. President Truman made the executive decision that our best bet would be to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. The atomic bomb ended World War ll, and saved lives, American and Japanese, but it also had many negative effects. According to the author, John Hersey, “Thousands of people had no one to help them.” (Hiroshima Page 48). The world was not going to help the Japanese and thousands were left to die. The use of weapons of mass destruction can never be justified because; they are inhumane, have massive negative effects on the environment, and wastes the government's money. The most important reason against the use of weapons of mass destruction is the simple fact that it is immensely inhumane and barbarous. The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima to end WWll was and still is justified by the fact that it saved American lives. When asked if it was the right thing to do to end the war, any veteran would say that it was absolutely the best…show more content…
Destroying entire cities would leave survivors without homes and hospitals. Upon the destruction of the environment, there would be less and less clean air and fresh water, the basic necessities of life. According to Abhishek Shah, the author of Pros and Cons of Nuclear Weapons – List of Facts and Debate, “Nuclear Weapons not only kill humans but also destroy the environment and the wildlife for hundreds of years.The residual radiation kills all plants and animals making it a dead zone for hundreds of years.” The use of these weapons would result in not only humans not having a place to live, but animals with a loss of habitat and a slim chance of any plants ever growing there in the near future. The destruction of these plants and resources would be a major detriment to our
Open Document