In 1945, the war against Japan is in the stage of an end. The American army is still debating whether to use the atomic bomb to force Japanese Army to surrender. Taking into account the views of commanders and public opinion, I think it is necessary to use the atomic bomb to bring the war to an early end. Some people believe that atomic bombs should not be dropped. According to the strategy summary report and the naval commander's prediction, Japan will surrender under the heavy pressure of conventional weapons. The army has tried to blockade Japan's foreign ties, and the destruction of civilian warfare will lead to a decline in American moral standards. The cost and research of an atomic bomb have cost the U.S. $1.8 billion, and it should not take another 114 times dollars to make an unmeaning damage. …show more content…
In the just-concluded battle of Okinawa, the United States lost 41,700 soldiers that means 35 percent of the total military. Nazi Germany had been subjected to heavy bombardment, but it was not until allied forces captured Berlin that the Germans were willing to give in. Japan's military factories are more fragmented, and they have the capacity to build 5000 suicide planes. There are still 2 million troops guarding their islands. If we follow what we did in Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and Ryukyu. It is estimated that the United States would have another half a million casualties. As a result, Japan is harder to capture than Germany. Death is inevitable in war. It is necessary for the President to be responsible for the lives of American soldiers. The quicker method is a kind of relief to the soldiers’ spirits and lives. If we memory the Pearl Harbor, we should know that a little hesitation and kindness to the enemy can lead us a serious damage, especially to the unhuman militarists who have faced death
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 of injuries and lives this would take.
World War II: Pacific Theater Overview and Japanese Cruelty Starting in the early 1930’s, the Japanese began to display their great imperialistic dreams with ambition and aggression. Their goal was to create a "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere" where they controlled a vast empire in the western Pacific.1 In September of 1939, Japan signed the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis Treaty, allying themselves with Germany and Italy in an effort to safeguard their interests in China from the Soviet Union. Japan’s only major obstacle left lay in the significant size of the United States Pacific Fleet. To rid themselves of this, Japan attacked the United States Pacific Fleet in hopes of crippling it enough to prevent any further hindrance from the US. Although Japan began the War in the Pacific on the offensive, winning many battles and gaining significant territories, the tide quickly turned in favor of the US because of the dominating industrial capacity.
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 to two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along with the Japanese neglect of the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria, proved that the Allied use of the atomic bomb was the definitive factor in the Japanese decision to surrender.
The decision Truman chose changed the course of world history. From a moral standpoint, the loss of innocent lives is never fair. The tremendous cost of using this weapon saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians from the immediate and long-term effects of bombs. Despite the moral arguments against this choice, this was the best one for the American cause. Truman’s obligation was first to the American people and as commander-in-chief, he made the decision he believed best for his constituents.
Japanese soldiers were trained in all types of conditions to prepare for war. People in Japan grew up with very nationalistic ideals. Many were passionate for their country and would sacrifice anything for their Emperor, even their own lives. This concept was reinforced during many Japanese soldier trainings. They were taught to never give up or surrender to the enemy. At this point, dropping the atomic bomb was needed to end the war in the Pacific, as it is the only way to defeat the Japanese. As the Japanese are very prideful in ethics, a war would occur on Japanese soil if it were not for the bomb. Japanese men would fight American troops, and ultimately, the Japanese would win the battle (The 1). The attacks on Pearl Harbor exemplify their dedication towards the war. Moreover, one can see the extent of nationalism through the negative effects of the Kamikaze pilots. They sacrificed their own lives for the better¬ o...
...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.
...that Japan was ready to surrender. Stimson, Churchill, Truman were all very aware of this. Declassified documents state that “the Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulates to the Allies.’’ (Alperoviz) According to this scenario there would have been some casualties but no more than 5000. As noted before this was Truman original plan but due to the number that he received he backed away from it. Rufus explains that there would have only been 31,000 American casualties, not deaths. The rhetoric is being missed under stood according to him. The number that Truman has been given are deaths and not casualties. Casualties include those who did and those who were wounded. The number of Japanese casualties would have consisted of about 66,000.
If the allied forces had invaded mainland Japan, many lives on both sides would have been lost, probably more than there lost in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together. The tactics that the allies had used up to this point cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. This was when the Japanese only had maybe two or three thousand men on an island; whereas on the mainland millions of people would fight until their death to protect their country. Can you imagine if the Americans invaded mainland Japan, where they had not only soldiers to fight against but also the citizens of Japan? Massive destruction, immense loss of life, and the prolonging of the war until late 1946, would result to invading on foot instead of using the bomb.
...d not surrender quickly and the war will drag into a long-drawn-out time. It will force and lead to Truman’s alternative: invade Japan. This would not only increases the resources used, but also more importantly pushes the death count up by an extensive amount of number. The Japanese still had over 4 million troops and 4,800 kamikaze pilots for suicide bombings and missions. In addition, these figures show that the invasion will cost more lives than just dropping the atomic bombs. In addition, 1,700,000 – 4,000,000 American casualties, including 500,000 fatalities, and 5,000,000 – 10,000,000 fatalities were estimated to take the US to conquer the whole of Japan (Frank 1999). This is incredibly higher than the casualties caused by the two atomic bombs: 200,000.
On August 6, 1945, the first bomb was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Three days later on August 9, the second bomb hit Nagasaki. Whether the United States made a moral and ethical decision is still an ongoing debate. President Truman was faced with a difficult choice. The U.S. chose to adopt a stance that seemed to limit the amount of casualties in the war, by significantly shortening it with the use of atomic weapons. It was certainly a reasonable view for the USA to take, since they had suffered the loss of more than thousands of lives, both military and civilian. To the top rank of the US military the death toll was worth it to prevent the “many thousands of American troops that would have been killed in invading Japan.” This was a grave
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...
To fully examine the factors that led to the United States dropping an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, one can look at the event as a result of two major decisions. The first decision concerned the use of newly developed nuclear weapons in lieu of other military techniques to secure a timely Japanese surrender. The second decision was to use several of these weapons instead of only one. Although the Truman administration displayed little hesitation or ambivalence over the decision to use atomic weapons (Walker, 51), it is important to examine what factors contributed to these swift actions. It was believed that dropping an atomic bomb on Nagasaki would resolve a number of problems in a simpler fashion than prolonging the conventional warfare until Japan finally ceded defeat.
The moral and military necessity of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has been a subject of debate for almost half a century. Most revisionists emphasize the victimization of Japan during the attacks. They often forget the military realities and the historical context while judging whether it was necessary for America to use nuclear weapons against the two Japanese cities. It is important to note that Japan was the aggressor. Japan triggered the war that led to the bombing of its two cities with its sneak attack on America’s Pearl harbour in 1941. Subsequent systematic and flagrant violation of several international agreements and norms through employment of chemical and biological warfare and mistreatment of prisoners of war and civilians aggravated the situation[ Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. (NY: Knopf, 1995), 89]. A response was needed to deal with increased aggression from Japan. Allied military planners had to choose between invading Japan and using the US atomic bombs in 1945[ Ronald Tabaki, Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. (Little, Brown, 1995), 101
Also, many messages between the United States and Japan declared that if the Japanese didn’t surrender, they would face ultimate annihilation (Atomic bomb). Consequently, when the Japanese refused to budge, the United States dropped two atomic bombs, the Little Boy and the Fat Man, on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a result, the Japanese people faced ultimate plight.