World War II brought up many new technologies for warfare. Advanced on existing developments such as weaponry, ships, vehicles air crafts, navigational devices and medicine are just a few broad examples of developments in warfare during this time in United States and World history. One development, however, changed the entire way of warfare. The Atomic bomb was developed during this time out of fears that the Germans had the same technologies, or at least were working to obtain it. Once the United States had this technological capability of producing atomic weapons, the way of fighting was changed. Two bombs were dropped on Japan in August of 1945, one on the city of Hiroshima and the other on the city of Nagasaki. Afterward, the ear of atomic diplomacy came up in American international relations, which as we have seen today, has led to the development of even stronger, more deadly weaponry and bombs. The bombing of Japan also brings up the still prevalent debate of whether the bombings were justifiable or not. Historians Gar Alperovitz, Robert P. Newman and Barton Bernstein all have written essays expressing their opinions in the matter. Gar Alperovitz writes an essay completely against the bombing in Japan, feeling that it was, as said in his essay tile, neither necessary nor justifiable. Lives were ultimately not saved like it has been the belief for years and there were many options not considered or over looked just because the government wanted a quick end to the war, important considerations like the state of Japan and the fact that they were on the verge of surrender. Robert Newman, in his essay, feels the exact opposite. Newman believed that the bombings were perfectly justifiable, considering the deaths caused by Jap... ... middle of paper ... ... Japanese hands. It is also believed that American lives were subsequently saved. However, there is evidence other wise. It is very true that the bombings were not racist, after all, the bombs, if developed sooner would have very likely been used on Germany if needed be. But even with this in mind, it is very cure in in humane along with an out of perportion action taking to an issue that could have very well solved itself withing in the matter of days. Were American lives saved, yes. Were the “bad Japs” defeated and stopped, yes. But it is neglected that alog with the emperial army, an equal amout ofd innocent civilians were killed, some instantly, and some from bunr wounds and contact with nuclea gasses, a fate that plagued Japan for years to come. Other opeiton of warfae could have been considered and live, not just americans, could have been spared as a result.
In discussion of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one controversial issue has the dropping of the atomic bombs being justified. On the other hand others believe that there were other ways of getting Japan to surrender and it was not justified, the only way we could get Japan to surrender was to invade them. Our strategy was to island hop until we got to Japan. Many more lives were at steak when doing that. Not only would just Americans would die, but a lot of the Japanese would have died as well, and the death toll would have much greater. 199,000 deaths came after the dropping of the atomic bombs. However, many American lives were saved, what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor, and the treatment of our American soldiers while
1.The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was necessary to end the war with the least number of total casualties and in the fastest possible way. The figures regarding the exact number of American lives that would’ve been lost has been highly debated, but considering the great resolve that the Japanese army had, they would almost surely have been more than those killed in Nagasaki, and that is just on the American side. I do not value American lives more than the lives of the innocent, many of whom were victims to the attack, but it is important to remember that regardless of whether we had dropped the bomb or not, we were fighting total war. In the many battles that would’ve occurred if the war had continued, women and children may have still been victims as we advanced our troops. These battles could’ve taken as long as another year, and who can say when the Japanese would’ve finally surrendered? They were filled with pride and resilience, and many soldiers would’ve prefered to die with honor, defending their homeland, than to surrender.
On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over Hiroshima. Three days later, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. On August 15th, the Japan announced unconditional surrender in World War II. To this day historians still discuss why the U.S. decided to use the atomic bombs. Orthodox historians argue that the decision to drop the bombs was a military one designed purely to defeat the Japanese. Revisionist historians argue that the bombs were not needed to defeat Japan; the bombs were meant to shape the peace by intimidating the Soviets. After analyzing the documents in The Manhattan Project it has become clear that the U.S. used the bombs during WWII not only to defeat the Japanese, but also to intimidate the Soviet Union
The United States was justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for many reasons. First of all, just to start out, the bombings had nothing to do with Japan, it was about the Cold War and the real reason America used these weapons was to show Russia that the US possessed them. Second, the war in the Pacific had been raging for almost four years. The two battles immediately preceding the bomb decision were Iwo Jima and Okinawa, two battles where the Japanese fought to the death and the cost in American casualties was horrific. It was predicted that the invasion of the Japanese mainland at the Island of Kyushu -- scheduled for November of 1945 -- would be even worse. The entire Japanese military and civilian population would fight to the death. American casualties -- just for that initial invasion to get a foothold on the island of Japan would have taken up to an estimated two months and would have resulted in up to 75,000 to 100,000 casualties. And that was just the beginning. Once the island of Kyushu was captured by U.S. troops, the remainder of Japan would follow. You can just imagine the cost in injuries and lives this would take. Also It is not beyond the possibility that a million or more Americans could have been killed had we landed. The Japanese had correctly guessed where we intended to land, and were ready and waiting for us. The casualties would have been high. Another reason the atomic bomb was justified is the bomb was dropped with a desire to save lives. It is a matter of math. How many Americans lost their lives fighting how many Japanese at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa. The mathematical formula showed the closer we got to Japan the more we lost.
We agree that, whatever be one’s judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible. The “8 Primary Pros and Cons of Dropping the Atomic Bomb” People also say how Japan was already defeated, concluding why the bombs were unnecessary. Although, many others say that the dropping of the atomic bombs saved their lives, but the debate over the decision to drop the atomic bomb will never be resolved. The war against Japan bestowed the Allies with entirely new problems as they encountered an enemy with utterly unfamiliar tactics.
The United States of America’s use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has spurred much debate concerning the necessity, effectiveness, and morality of the decision since August 1945. After assessing a range of arguments about the importance of the atomic bomb in the termination of the Second World War, it can be concluded that the use of the atomic bomb served as the predominant factor in the end of the Second World War, as its use lowered the morale, industrial resources, and military strength of Japan. The Allied decision to use the atomic bomb not only caused irreparable physical damage on two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along
...ar the use of weapons of this magnitude, the American idea of the Japanese people has changed, and we now have set up preventions in the hope of avoiding the use of nuclear weaponry. John Hersey provides a satisfactory description of the atomic bombing. Most writers take sides either for or against the atom bomb. Instead of taking a side, he challenges his readers to make their own opinions according to their personal meditations. On of the key questions we must ask ourselves is “Are actions intended to benefit the large majority, justified if it negatively impacts a minority?” The greatest atrocity our society could make is to make a mistake and not learn from it. It is important, as we progress as a society, to learn from our mistakes or suffer to watch as history repeats itself.
The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was completely justified in both cause and impact. An intense weapon was necessary to force a quick Japanese surrender. The bomb saved thousands upon thousands of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost if the war continued or an invasion occurred. The bomb was the only way to end the suffering of the millions who were being held captive by the Japanese oppressor. The weapon of mass destruction also sent a powerful message to the shaky Soviet allies. The choice to use the atomic bomb was justified because it compelled a Japanese surrender, saved countless lives, served as retribution for the sufferings of many people, and acted as an anti-Soviet deterrent.
The statement “Killing 150,000 people in less than a second actually allowed fewer lives to be lost.” might sound horrendous. However, that statement is the reason why the United States was able to win the Second World War. In contrast to this statement, some people might argue that it is inhumane to massacre that many people in less than a second. The dropping of the atomic bombs on August sixth and ninth of 1945 was the correct decision for American in order to effectively and efficiently end World War Two. America should have dropped the bomb because it saved American lives, there was a lack of incentives not to use the bomb, and dropping the bombs was the quickest way to end the war.
In contrast, Maier and Selden’s thesis claims the act of dropping the atomic bomb was completely justifiable and not a war crime is the counter argument. Since, both authors address the fact that the world was at war and that aerial bombing was not something new, however, the technology advances were. In addition, their logic is reasonable because at the time of World War II almost everyone was using strategic and tactical aerial bombing, not to mention the Allies wanted to end the war as soon as possible. Thus, the atomic bomb was justifiable, however, it was a war crime. The objective of the tactical bombing was to aim at military targets it achieves its objective, however, killing thousands of lives in the process. The statement by Maier
Some of these are the bombings that killed innocent Japanese civilians who did not deserve it, the Japanese were about to surrender before we bombed them, and the United States only blasted the Japanese because of racism toward them. Though there are many valid reasons for and against the bombing, there is still much controversy today about whether President Truman made the right decision.
... then turned to incidenary bombing at low altitudes with devastating results. In a few months 180 square miles of 67 different cities were destroyed; 2, 510,00 Japanese homes were destroyed leaving about 30% of the population homeless. With between 268,157 to 900,000 Japanese civilians killed there were more Japanese civilians killed by American weapons than were Japanese soldier and the majority of these deaths were direct results of firebombing. The United States then dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 200,000 people and within days the Japanese surrendered. While the morality of the bombing of Japan is highly questionable the effectiveness is not. The bombing led directly to the surrender of the Japanese and saved the lives of the many American troops that would have been lost had the United States engaged in the invasion of the mainland.
...ings by saying that it saved millions of Americans, but I came to find out that, that wasn’t so true. While looking through many articles, books, and databases, I realized that before getting this assignment I only knew the things that were shared with me about this subject. I knew what everyone wanted me to know and I never questioned it. I believed that if our country were to bomb someone, they’d have justifiable reasons as to why they did it. This event taught me that just because there are a few myths as to why something happened, you don’t have to agree with them. America is my home, but never will I ever agree that the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. They could have been avoided and lives could have
As World War 2, came to a close, The United States unleashed a secret atomic weapon upon the enemy nation of Japan that was quickly recognized as the most powerful wartime weapon in human history. They completely destroyed the entire Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and essentially vaporized countless innocent Japanese lives. Some historians believe that it was a foolish, brutal decision to use the atomic bomb on a weakened Japan, and that the civilians of the country did not deserve that kind of mass-annihilation. On the opposite side, other historians assert that dropping the bomb saved countless American and Japanese lives by ending the war faster than a regular invasion would have. What is undisputed is that this sad event dramatically changed the course of human history.
In 1945, the United States was facing severe causalities in the war in the Pacific. Over 12,000 soldiers had already lost their lives, including 7,000 Army and Marine soldiers and 5,000 sailors (32). The United States was eager to end the war against Japan, and to prevent more American causalities (92). An invasion of Japan could result in hundreds of thousands killed, wounded and missing soldiers, and there was still no clear path to an unconditional surrender. President Truman sought advice from his cabinet members over how to approach the war in the Pacific. Although there were alternatives to the use of atomic weapons, the evidence, or lack thereof, shows that the bombs were created for the purpose of use in the war against Japan. Both the political members, such as Henry L. Stimson and James F. Byrnes, and military advisors George C. Marshall and George F. Kennan showed little objection to completely wiping out these Japanese cities with atomic weapons (92-97). The alternatives to this tactic included invading Japanese c...