_________. The dropping of an atomic bomb on a single city in Japan seems necessary because it will end the war faster, it will save American lives, and it will prevent Russia or Germany from creating hazardous weapons to use against us such as the atomic bomb. This war has gone on too long. It has brought pain, suffering, and death all over the world for the past years. Millions of people have died in this war and it needs to end. Germany has been conquered, yet Japan remains as a force unwilling to surrender. If Japan refuses to surrender, this could lead to many more months or even a year more of fighting. Henry L. Stimson states in document C that, “Japanese government might determine upon resistance until the end, in all the areas of As president, it is your duty to protect the lives of Americans. By dropping the atomic bomb, you are saving the lives of Americans who are fighting in this war and possibly saving the lives of American that could have otherwise been in jeopardy in the future. In order to defeat with Japan without using the atomic bomb, more troops would have to be sent to Japan, causing the death of many American soldiers. The Japanese have an estimated 5,000,000 men (Doc C) working in their army. In order to defeat such a large army of people who are willing to fight to the death for their country will cost the lives of thousands or even a million of Americans. Henry L. Stimsonin Document C states, “I was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over one million causalities, to American forces alone.” With using the stagey of an invasion rather than the atomic bomb, millions of Americans lives are put in danger, the lives who look up to you to support them and do what is best for them to live a good life. American lives are spared by using the atomic bomb. In addition to saving lives immediately, long term it will also save lives. By bombing Japan, it prevents from the possibility of another attack onto the US by the Japanese. I is undeniable that, yes, the bomb will cause many Japanese to die, however in order to win the war and save the lives of our soldiers we need to take this risk in
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
Japan was depleted of resources by the time the atomic bombs struck(Tucker 2). If the war continued, Japan would completely run out of supplies leaving citizens to starve, and killing more innocents the longer the war continued. The first stage of the war in Japan would have lasted over a year(Walker 2), which could have caused hundreds of death in just the first stage of fighting. Japan’s citizens “were also being prepared to fight to the death”(Tucker 1) before the war ended. Therefore confirming the fact that the atomic bomb saved the Japanese from going through a long struggle of starvation and
The Atomic Bomb Should Not Have Been DroppedAs President Obama signs new nuclear policy, we are reminded of the longand sordid history of nuclear policy in the United States. We have come a long waysince we decided to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.It is amazing that we continue debating this initial deployment of nuclear weaponrytoday. The US should not have decided to drop these atomic bombs. This decisionwas morally incorrect and unnecessary. Thousands of people died who did not needto die, and many more became sick from radiation poisoning. The bombs wiped twoentire cities off the map. How can anyone even argue for this in the first place?One argument that was used to support dropping the bomb was that theJapanese forfeited their rights when they aggressively attacked Pearl Harbor andcommitted war crimes against prisoners and the Chinese. However, this argument does not work for a few reasons. First, there are two types of justice in war. There isthe justice for going to war (
During the initial blast the A-bomb released about 85% of its energy as intense heat followed by a supersonic shock wave that is felt as a highly destructive high pressure air blast, which can easily demolish tall buildings, not to mention people. After the initial blast radiation covers the area, causing people, animals, and structures to practically disintegrate. Even years afterwards people were still dying and having health problems related to the radiation they were exposed to long before. There were many people that were strongly opposed to the using of nuclear weapons on Japan. But invading the is land instead of bombing would have taken perhaps 1 million us soldiers lives.
Both sides of the war had suffered tremendous losses and the numbers would have continued to grow over the course of the war. By choosing to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, I believe the lives saved in the long run outweigh the initial number of lives lost. There is no way to put a price of one human life against another, but the total number of deaths prevented could have been multitudes compared to the hundred thousand killed in the atomic blasts. From the numbers alone, I support President Truman’s utilitarian
In my personal opinion, after gather as much information as possible, I think that the use of the atomic bomb is impracticable and a waste of time, money, and lives. If I were President of the United States I could have made the decision to not use the Atomic bomb on Japan. Using this weapon would only open the door to more destruction. After dropping this bomb, I don’t think it would have ended the war. It probably would have ended World War II, but I think that it would have created more wars to come. People, most likely Japan, would have wanted revenge and find a way to counterattack. They would try to create a more dangerous destruction weapon that would allow them to retaliate and destroy. I, as President, would have wanted to prevent that. And in the best interest of my country I would have made the decision to keep this nuclear weapon out of war.
Ending the War earlier and saving American lives was indeed a deciding factor. However, General MacArthur who was one of the war heroes on the pacific front reportedly believed that the war could be won in as little as 6 months with little danger to American troops simply by intensifying conventional bombing and naval blockades. However, more importantly, by August the war on the pacific front could have been over for 8 months. In January 1945 Japan offered terms of surrender. The terms that Japan offered were full surrender of the Japanese forces, air, land and sea, at home and in all occupied countries. Surrender of all arms and ammunition. Agreement of the Japanese to occupation of their homeland and island possessions. Relinquishment of Manchuria, Korea and Formosa. Regulation of Japanese industry. Surrender of designated war criminals for trial. And Release of all prisoner...
In my opinion, the decision to use the atomic bomb was harsh and rash, but necessary to end the war and protect American lives and interests. Sometimes harsh decisions need to be made in order to serve the greater good. It was somewhat unjust to the Japanese civilians but in the end saved many military lives that would have been wasted if the war dragged on for who knows how many more years. This is why, in the end, I feel it was the best way to put the storm of World War 2 to rest.
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...
The atomic bomb is a powerful, explosive nuclear weapon. It is fueled by the fission of the nuclei of specific amounts of plutonium or uranium, in a chain reaction. The strength of the explosion created by one of these bombs is equal to the strength of an explosion created by thousands of tons of TNT.
The United States entered WW II immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The U.S. entry was a major turning point in the war because it brought the strongest industrial strength to the Allied side. The Americans helped the Allies to win the war in Europe with the surrender of Germany on May 7, 1945. However, the war in the Pacific continued. The war with Japan at this point consisted primarily of strategic bombings. America had recently completed an atomic bomb and was considering using this weapon of mass destruction for the first time. The goal was to force the “unconditional surrender” of the Japanese. Roosevelt had used the term “unconditional surrender” in a press conference in 1943 and it had since become a central war aim. Truman and his staff (still feeling bound by FDR’s words) demanded unconditional surrender from the Japanese. Consequently on July 26, 1945 Truman issued an ultimatum to Japan. This ultimatum stated that Japan must accept “unconditional surrender” or suffer “utter devastation of the Japanese Homeland”. This surrender included abdication of the throne by their emperor. Japan was not willing to surrender their dynasty and ignored the ultimatum. On August 6th and August 9th, atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively.
Admittedly, dropping the atomic bomb was a major factor in Japan's decision to accept the terms laid out at the Potsdam agreement otherwise known as unconditional surrender. The fact must be pointed out, however, that Japan had already been virtually defeated. (McInnis, 1945) Though the public did not know this, the allies, in fact, did. Through spies, they had learned that both Japan's foreign minister, Shigenori Togo and Emperor Hirohito both supported an end to the war (Grant, 1998). Even if they believed such reports to be false or inaccurate, the leaders of the United States also knew Japan's situation to be hopeless. Their casualties in defending the doomed island of Okinawa were a staggering 110,000 and the naval blockade which the allies had enforced whittled trade down to almost nothing. Japan was quickly on the path to destruction. (Grant, 1998). Of course, the Allies ignored this for the reason that dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would intimidate Russia. Had they truly been considering saving more lives and bringing a quick end to the war in Japan, they would have simply waited them out without the major loss of life seen at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
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?
On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This was an extremely controversial military strategy in the United States. Was the United States justified in the dropping of the atomic bomb? The U.S. feared the rise of communism and gave aid to any country against it. The U.S. also fought countries threatening the spread communism. One of these countries was Japan. We began a harsh and brutal war against Japan and against communism. This war was killing many soldiers and Japan was not backing down. President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb when things were getting worse. The decision to use the atomic bomb was a difficult one and many people wonder if it was the right choice.