The Influential use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos
The use of nuclear weapons during a war is not appealing; nothing is free from destruction, not even human life. During World War II against Japan, a petition to United States President Truman request he deter from using the atomic bomb during Japan’s current state (Szilard). The author, Leo Szilard, was a scientist who studied and created explosive devices. Throughout the 1945 war with Japan, it became apparent of the president’s intent to deploy the bomb. Against these actions, Szilard wrote a petition utilizing ethos, pathos, and logos to substantiate his claims. The President of the United States could choose to begin a chain reaction of using atomic bombs against other countries, or shun a relentless path.
Szilard begins his petition by hooking the reader’s attention stating there is anonymous information that can affect the future of the American people. Next, he discloses the information and concludes with who has final authority to proceed or refuse such actions.
“Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future. The liberation of atomic power which has been achieved places atomic bombs in the hands of the Army. It places in your hands, as Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan” (Szilard).
Szilard argued that dropping a bomb would be wrong and viewed as unjustified. The United States should openly broadcast their projected attack and give Japan time to surrender.
“We feel, however, that such an attack on Japan could not be justified in the present circumstances. We believe that the United St...
... middle of paper ...
... Accepting such blame could arouse feelings of shame, embarrassment, and vulnerability.
Szilard successfully utilized logos to prove his point. The first reason is the president can decide to use atomic bombs. The second reason is atomic bombs obliterate things, including human life. Both ideas are true making the conclusion true also. If the president decides to use atomic bombs, there will be the destruction of everything including humans.
Szilard’s petition was efficacious from beginning to end. He instantly stimulated reader’s suspicion by stating there is private information that could affect their future. He influentially supported his argument through ethos, pathos, and logos. Although the President of the United States did not have to acknowledge the written request, he was aware if he deployed atomic power he could be starting a vicious circle.
McCraw, David, and Stephen Gikow. “The End to a Unspoken Bargain? National Security and Leaks in a Post-Pentagon Papers World.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 48.2 (2013): 473-509. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
In Prompt and Utter Destruction, J. Samuel Walker provides the reader with an elaborate analysis of President Truman’s decision behind using the atomic bomb in Japan. He provokes the reader to answer the question for himself about whether the use of the bomb was necessary to end the war quickly and without the loss of many American lives. Walker offers historical and political evidence for and against the use of the weapon, making the reader think critically about the issue. He puts the average American into the shoes of the Commander and Chief of the United States of America and forces us to think about the difficulty of Truman’s decision.
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.
Strength of Argument: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Bell Hooks’s essay, "Keeping Close to Home", uses three important components of argument (ethos, pathos, and logos) to support her claim. Hooks develops her essay by establishing credibility with her audience, appealing to the reader’s logic, and stirring their emotions. She questions the role a university should play in the life of a nation, claiming that higher education should not tear a student away from his roots, but help him to build an education upon his background. Bell Hooks gains the trust and credibility of readers through knowledge of the topic at hand, establishing common ground with the audience, and demonstrating fairness.
The United States gained supremacy by using the atomic bomb as a threat to force their enemies to surrender. After Japan led an attack on Pearl Harbor, the American forces retaliated by dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and then threatening to do the same on Nagasaki. “We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city” (Department). This shows how the atomic bomb was used as a means of intimidation; the use of the atomic bomb forced other countries into submission by threatening them with nuclear attack. Furthermore, the United States made it clear to its enemies that they had alternative options for reconciliation before nuclear attacks were to take place. The President of the United States explained “thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender,” and urged that Japan “accept those consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace loving Japan” (Department). This demonstrates the use of an ethical appeal by the United States because it arrouses ones sense of duty to preserve peace. While war was inevitable, the U.S. hoped that the threat of nuclear destruction would force other countries into negotiating peace instead of fighting. Evidently, by using nuclear threats as a form of intimidation, the U...
The Atomic Age represents the most epic era and composed of diverse controversial issues in the human history. In the late 1945, President Harry Truman informed to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs quickly yielded the surrender of Japan and the end the World War 2. However, the impact of it led us to debate whether this decision was actually right or so. First off, it would be hard to imagine how Japan would have been surrendered without the atomic bomb. Therefore to save many American lives, President Truman believed that it was his duty to end the war as soon as possible. But the bombs took away innocent lives and killed civilians indiscriminately. “Atomic Age America” written by Martin
Imagine a society where everyone has a different opinion about dropping an atomic bomb to country that they are fighting with. What is an atomic bomb? An atomic bomb is a bomb which derives its destructive power from the rapid release of nuclear energy by fission of heavy atomic nuclei, causing damage through heat, blast, and radioactivity. The atomic bomb is a tremendously questionable topic. Nonetheless, these literary selections give comprehension on the decision about dropping the atomic bomb for military purposes. For example, the “Speech to the Association of Los Alamos Scientists” by Robert Oppenheimer, argues that we should have drop the atomic bomb, “A Petition to the President of the United States” by 70 scientists, asks President
For some, an argument may be a discussion that leads people to become mad and feel hate towards someone. This also might bring tension, between friends and family, but there’re times when people just want to discuss a topic that they feel would make the conflict better or resolved. When an argument happens, it’s recommended to use Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle. It is here that Aristotle set’s up three ways to appeal to the audience, which are ethos, pathos, and logos. These three appeals help the writer to persuade, inform, or convince the audience that what he/she is doing the right thing. Without Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle and Aims of Arguments, the writer would unsuccessfully perform an argument correctly. If creditability of the
On August 6th, 1945, the United States of America dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima in Japan. Two days later, a second bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. These two bombs were the most devastating weapons ever seen, and their effects on human beings and property were plainly horrifying. Approximately 110,000 people were killed; most of them were innocent civilians who just happened to have lived in the wrong place at the wrong time. Although using this weapon was an atrocity to both the Japanese, and humanity in general, the world was at war. No matter what ulterior motives may have existed, the fact remains that the bomb was a justifiably necessary measure to bring an early end to aggressive war that was instigated by Japan. Japan would never have surrendered unconditionally, as decreed in the Potsdam Ultimatum. Invasion of the Japanese home islands were out of the question because of the ferocious defense that would have been staged, and the huge number of casualties that it would entail. The bomb shocked the Japanese militarists into surrender and gave the “peace-party” the added credibility they required to bring about a quick end to the war. The use of the bomb also kept Russia out of the war, preventing problems that had occurred in post-war Germany, and later on in Korea. When all factors are taken into consideration, the use of the atomic bomb actually saved more lives, both Japanese and American than it took.
... in American history’, there is much evidence to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, Strickland’s study does offer a valuable guide to the development of ideas, organizations and associations the formed by atomic scientists immediately after the World War II. It, however, not does include an extensive analysis of the Manhattan Project scientists’ wartime messages, nor does it investigate the tenets behind them. Correspondingly, Robert Gilpin’s study extensively covers the scientists’ role in atomic energy policy-making in the post-war decades. Although his study in useful for evaluating how scientists can be more successfully integrated into matters of nuclear weapons policy, it fails to consider the varying forms of the atomic scientists’ wartime movement and its relevance for considering their successes and failures in influencing post-war nuclear weapons policy.
The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan were ethical decisions made by President Harry Truman and the United States government. By the time of the atom bomb was ready, the U.S. had been engaged in military conflict for over four years and lost over 400,000 soldiers. Truman claimed, "We would have the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved" (Winkler 18). The bomb was aimed at ending the war immediately and avoiding prolonged battle in the Pacific Theater and the inevitable invasion of Japan. President Truman hoped that by showing the Japanese the devastating weapon the U.S. possessed, that the war could be brought ...
To choose whether or not it was morally sound to use the atomic bomb, we must first examine the background as to what circumstances it was dropped under. In 1945, American soldiers and civilians were weary from four years of war, yet the Japanese military was refusing to give up their fight. American forces occupied Okinawa and Iwo Jima and intensely fire bombed Japanese cities. But Japan had an army of 2 million strong stationed in the home islands guarding against Allied invasion. After the completion of the Manhattan Project, For Truman, the choice whether or not to use the atomic bomb was the most difficult decision of his life. First, an Allied demand for an immediate unconditional surrender was made to the leadership in Japan. Although the demand stated that refusal would result in total destruction, no mention of any new weapons of mass destruction was made. The Japanese military commander Hideki Tojo rejected the request for unconditional s...
The war was coming to a victorious conclusion for the Allies. Germany had fallen, and it was only a matter of time until Japan would fall as well. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was at the forefront of the American war effort, and saw atomic weaponry as a way out of the most monumental war ever. As discussed in Cabell Phillips’ book, The Truman Presidency: The History of a Triumphant Succession, Stimson was once quoted as saying that the atomic bomb has “more effect on human affairs than the theory of Copernicus and the Law of Gravity” (55). Stimson, a defendant of dropping the bomb on Japan, felt that the world would never be the same. If the world would change after using atomic weapons, could it possibly have changed for the better? One would think not. However, that person might be weary of the biased opinion of White House personnel. He or she should care more for the in depth analytical studies done by experts who know best as to why America should or should not have dropped the atomic bomb. As more and more evidence has been presented to researchers, expert opinion on whether or not the United States should have dropped the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has also changed. More and more researchers seem to feel that the atomic bomb should never have been used (Alperovitz 16). Despite several officials’ claims to enormous death estimations, an invasion of Japan would have cost fewer total lives. In addition, post atomic bomb repercussions that occurred, such as the Arms Race, were far too great a price to pay for the two atomic drops. However, possibly the most compelling argument is that Japan would have surrendered with or without the United States using the atomic bomb. In defiance of top...
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...
"Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Justifiable?" The Pacific War 1941-43. Web. 10 June 2010.