Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of the atomic bomb on the world
Dropping the atomic bomb dbq
Dropping the atomic bomb dbq
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of the atomic bomb on the world
OPENING STATEMENT: As renowned historian David McCullough has been known to say, “people living ‘back then’ didn’t know they were living ‘back then’,” To judge the decisions of people in 1945 by the standards of today is not only nonsensical, it is simply pointless. Truman and his advisers made a reasonable if not intelligent choice to drop the atomic bomb in the context of World War II. In Truman’s position as president where he was faced with handling a brutal war involving an astronomical amount of American soldiers, the choice to drop the atomic bomb was seemingly the best of his limited options. It is because of this that my team and I stand on the firmest affirmation and feel compelled to say yes, the United States was justified in …show more content…
According to History.co.uk “Six months of intense strategic fire-bombing of 37 Japanese cities had done little to break the Hirohito regime’s resolve, and Japan continued to resolutely ignore the demand for unconditional surrender made at Potsdam.” In such a circumstance, the use of the atom bomb is clearly seen as the best way of forcing Japan to surrender, and ending the strenuous war. The alternative, of an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands, was expected to cost hundreds of thousands of American casualties. August 15, just six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, just as predicted the Japanese surrendered- ended World War II. In “The Most Controversial Decision,” by the Rev. Wilson Miscamble, professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, blames the incredibly and unreasonably persistent attitude of Japan on “the twisted neo-samurai who led the Japanese military geared up with true banzai spirit to engage the whole population in a kind of kamikaze campaign. Their stupidity and perfidy in perpetuating and prolonging the struggle should not be …show more content…
According to Forbes.com “The losses between February and June 1945 just from the Allied invasions of the Japanese-held islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa were staggering: 18,000 dead and 78,000 wounded.” The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that an invasion of Japan’s home islands would result in approximately 1.2 million total American casualties, with 267,000 killed. A study performed by physicist William Shockley for the staff of Secretary of War Henry Stimson estimated that the invasion of Japan would result in 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese deaths. These estimates were in addition to the military members who had already died during the previous four years of war; which was 292,000 American deaths. In other words according to the estimates, the invasion of Japan could have resulted in the death of twice as many Americans as had already been killed in the European and Pacific theaters of WWII up to that time making it evident that the atomic bomb was indeed a sensible alternative
Japanese stood their ground and on December 7,1941.The surprise attack on the Americans that destroyed or damage nearly 20 American naval vessels, including eight battleships, and over 300 airplanes. More than 2,400 Americans died in the attack, including civilians, and another 1,000 people were wounded at Pearl Harbor(document
Japan killed millions in World War II we killed under 100,000 in the dropping of the bombs. “More than 46 million people died in World War II. The Japanese, alone, may have killed 17 million. So why have so many focused so intently on the 80,000 who died at Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945?”(Benson). Atomic bombs destroyed parts of Japan and took out the population of cities; however, the Japanese took the lives of enough people to fill to the population of South Dakota; 17 times.
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.
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
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.
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 ...
The decision to drop the atomic bomb was contemplated by officials in the American government for a prolonged period of time. Ultimately the conclusion was that dropping the bombs would be beneficial to America. The American government rationalized dropping the bombs by stating that it would terminate the war with Japan and save a plethora of American lives. America did issue an ultimatum declaring that Japan should cease to resist and in return conditions would be provided for Japan to finish the war with honor. This ultimatum was ignored and the alternative was absolute destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Dollinger) Most officials believed that taking this last step would force Japan’s surrender and shorten the war which would result in a decrease of American casualties. (Barnes) Winston Churchill approximated that one million American lives were preserved by utilizing the atomic bomb.
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...
America was not the only one who suffered casualties during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan lost five midget submarines and nine of the men who piloted the small, war submersibles. The tenth man, Ensign Sakamaki, became our first Japanese WWII prisoner of war. Jap...
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...
19 February 1945 marked the beginning of one of the fiercest and bloodiest; and more decisively, the most strategically important battles fought during World War II. A total of 6,821 U.S. Marines had lost their lives, along with 19,217 wounded over the five-week span of the battle for Iwo Jima. Of the 22,000 Japanese soldiers on the island, only 212 were taken prisoners. “Iwo Jima was the only battle by the U.S. Marine Corps in which the overall American casualties (killed and wounded) exceeded those of the Japanese, although Japanese combat deaths were thrice those of the Americans throughout the battle (O'Brien, 1987).”
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
One of, if not the most influential part, of allowing the bombs to drop is because of the mentality of the Japanese military and the pull they had in politics. As Maddox stated, “[t]he army, not the Foreign Office controlled the situation” (Maddox, pg. 286). Although Japan had an influential leader in regards to their emperor, the military wanted to and would have engag...
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.