Hiroshima and Nagasaki the untold story On August 6th 1945, the first Atomic Bomb, “Little Boy,” was dropped on Hiroshima, and three days later on August 9th 1945, the second atomic bomb, “Fat Man,” was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan’s industrial capital. The decision to use the Atomic Bomb against Japan was a poor one considering the damage, the devastation, and the amount of people left dead, injured, or suffering the loss of a family member or a friend, all for the sake of quickly ending the ongoing War. When the Japanese had realized that they were the only ones left in the war, Germany their ally, was already beaten out of the war and all efforts were now concentrated at them, the Japanese began suing for a peaceful end to the war. Apart …show more content…
The most common reason advocating the use of the atomic bomb is based on the argument that it saved American lives. Secretary of War Stimson states that the atomic bomb “…was going to be used because it would save hundreds of thousands of American lives” (Alperovitz 354). According to Lemay, “[I]f a nuclear weapon shortened the war by only a week, probably it saved more lives than were taken by that single glare of heat and radiation” (Alperovitz 334). Lemay maintains, “the atomic bomb probably saved three million Japanese lives and perhaps a million American casualties” (Alperovitz …show more content…
Close to half the population of the area that the bomb was dropped on was completely and totally wiped out. Not only did the atomic bomb kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but it also devastated an entire country. Due to the fact that the bomb was dropped on Japan’s two industrial cities, Japan went into a total economic and traditional decline. Japan’s economy was devastated, and due to the fact that the Americans had to step in and help the Japanese economy to build back up, most of the American values and traditions were incorporated into the Japanese culture. The Americans had good intentions when they decided to use the atomic bomb, they merely wanted to stop the bloodshed and did what they thought was possibly
...ights leader César Estrada Chávez attempted to make the growers and other fellow businessmen understand what the farm workers were going through. In it, he demanded equal rights and demanded that the masses of farm workers be free and treated as humans. The “Letter from Delano” had a remarkable impact on the tide of the table grape boycott, as Chávez’s words served to ignite the fires in the hearts of fellow farm workers and other Americans of unrelated ethnicities as well. These fires burnt for equal rights and freedom for all, and helped cement the strikes and table grape boycott as part of the Civil Rights Movement. Chávez used his dedication to militant nonviolence to achieve equal rights for his fellow farm workers, and helped ensure that they and their future generations would no longer be enslaved by the industry the letter’s receiver, Mr. Barr, represented.
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...
The dropping of the atomic bomb may be one of the most controversial topics in American history. Could there have been another way to end the war without obliterating two Japanese cities? Several historians have taken a side and stated their interpretation of the situation. There are numerous factors that can sway the argument either way depending upon how influential you determine those factors to be. Some main historians that debated this topic are Robert Maddox, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, and Gar Alperovitz. Each of these historians provides us with different insight, and a different answer to the question, was it necessary to drop the atomic bomb to end World War II?
2. Leckie, Robert. "131. Hiroshima." Delivered from Evil: The Saga of World War II. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. 938-42. Print.
One of the most argued topics today, the end of World War II and the dropping of the atomic bombs still rings in the American ear. Recent studies by historians have argued that point that the United States really did not make the right choice when they chose to drop the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Also with the release of once classified documents, we can see that the United States ...
Powers, Thomas. "THE BOMB : Hiroshima: Changing the Way We Think About War." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 06 Aug. 1995. Web. 10 Jan. 2014.
With multiple chances from the United States to surrender in the war and rejecting each one, the Japanese set themselves up for disaster. On August 6, 1945 the course of history was changed. Two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima, and three days later, August 9, 1945, on Nagasaki that ended World War II. Japan had already been a defeated nation from conventional bombs and World War II. Many innocent lives were lost, psychological scars were left on the lives of the bomb survivors, and thus many lives were changed forever. The atomic bombings caused many people to have genetic effects due to the radiation from the bombs. Revisionists have said the US used the bombs to blackmail the Soviet Union. The deployment of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally justified because it ended the war quickly, ultimately saved many lives, and was a beginning for many.
In the late 1960’s to mid-70’s the legal drinking age was 18 because the voting age of 21 was lowered to 18. However, in 1984 a bill was passed that every state in the United States was to change the legal drinking age from 18 to 21. Although this is a highly controversial topic many young adults believe lowering the drinking age back to 18 is best because if they may vote at the age of 18 then, they should be allowed purchase alcoholic beverages. In an article “Should the U.S. lower its drinking age?” written by Brandon Griggs introduces the pros and cons of lowering the drinking age. Griggs explains two generations ago young adults didn’t have to worry much about getting caught drinking or buying their way out to purchase alcohol. Nowadays
...e minimum legal drinking age in the United States should remain at twenty-one years old. Since the National Legal Drinking Age Act was ratified, the consumption of liquor among minors has abated significantly. With the restriction in affect, the United States is definitely a safer place when it comes to alcohol use. Even though, the reduction of the drinking age would get rid of the taboo that surrounds alcohol which would result in fewer teens drinking just to be accepted by their peers, young adolescents now have a harder time getting access to alcohol due to the minimum legal drinking age resulting in less alcohol-affiliated problems and a decrease in damage to their bodies. Teens and alcohol are not a good mix so citizens of the United States should keep them separated as best as they can. By having a minimum age limit of twenty-one, that is a great way to do it.
All 50 states have set the minimum legal drinking age to 21, although some states have made exceptions. Raising the drinking age to 21 in order to avoid teenage drinking has instead created excessive drinking in private places, therefore producing more danger (“Minimum”). The national drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 in 1984; it was not until 1988 that all 50 states had a minimum legal drinking age of 21 (Wechsler and Nelson 986). Drinking underage is permitted in certain circumstances in 45 of the states; 29 states allow it on private property under parental consent, 25 states allow it for religious purposes, and 11 for educational purposes (“Minimum”). Lowering the minimum drinking age is ineffective and would benefit the economy, it
Rape is a virus that infects every nation, culture and society. It is constantly referred to as “the unfinished murder”, because of the deep state of despair the rapist leaves the victim in. There is no common identifiable trend that determines who will be a rape victim. Women are not assaulted because of their attitudes or actions, they are attacked simply because they are present. With rapists, just as with their victims, there is no identifiable trend. The old myth that only “sick, dirty, old, perverted men” commit rapes is a lie that society tells itself in order to sleep better at night. The startling truth is that most rapists work under a veil of normalcy. In order for the percentage of rapes to decrease, we have to change our ideas about rape and let go of the old myths of the past. And until this happens, rape will continue to plague our world at large.
According to the law of United States of America, 21 is the legal age to allow alcohol drinking. Although,
The first establishment of a national drinking age actually started before prohibition. The temperance movement at the time used a minimum drinking age to gradually bring about the ban of alcohol all together. In 1919 the temperance movement got what they wanted and the 18th Amendment was created banning the sale of Alcohol in America. This ultimately failed resulting in increased gang violence and bootlegging. In 1933 due to a change of public opinion the ban was lifted with what is called the 21st Amendment. After prohibition what was left of the temperance movement made sure that a minimum drinking age remained. This made it illegal for anyone under 21 to buy liquor but in some states you could still buy beer at 18. This remained the case for the next forty years. In the early 70’s when baby boomers were dealing with the Vietnam war there was pressure to lower the drinking age, so many states (29 of them) lowered the LDA to either 18 or 19. The big argument was that if one could die in combat why couldn’t he have a drink. But, as the baby boomers aged there wasn’t as much support for these liberties so by the 80’s most states went back to 21. Then in 1984 the National Minimum Drinking Age Act passed which forced all states to adopt a drinking age of 21 within 2 years or face being cut federal funds for state highways.
...apidly our world today. There are hundreds of places people may go and visit for help or more information about rape and sexual violence. It is very important that when and if it happens, the victim needs to report the crime to authorities immediately. People must know the truth about rape and sexual violence and what to do about it.
...nd others. Be that voice that many don’t have and are afraid to come out. Help those who have suffered tremendous pain and suffering. There is so much to life that no one should feel violated and ashamed for what has happened to them. Everyone deserves a right to live in safety and enjoy life without being in fear all the time. Report those who have committed rape and seek help immediately. It is everyone’s responsibility to look out for each other. There are so many support groups and online support from people who have been raped and have suffered and overcome this tragic happening. Many will never forget what it was like to suffer and be raped, there is always hope for recovery and living a life of happiness. Report those rapists and put them in jail for their terrible actions. No one deserves to be violated by anyone. Everyone deserves to be respected and loved.