More handpicked essays just for you.
Justification for dropping the atomic bomb
Justification for the use of the atomic bomb against japan
Justification for the use of the atomic bomb against japan
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justification for dropping the atomic bomb
In the 1940’s World War II was at its peak. In 1941 America was bombed at Pearl Harbor; this act sparked the start of America's involvement in the war. In 1941 America bombed Japan. During that time a question arose; was using the atomic bomb against Japan justified or not (Dudley 119). President Harry S. Truman believed that using the atomic bomb against Japan was in fact, justified (Dudley 119). On the opposing side, came from and editorial in the Christian Century, a journal with a readership of Protestant religious leaders, many Americans were disturbed by the attack on the Japan (Dudley 121). One should agree with President Harry S. Truman, that using the atomic bomb against Japan was justified. President Harry S. Truman said “The Japanese
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.
The United States was justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for many reasons. First of all, just to start out, the bombings had nothing to do with Japan, it was about the Cold War and the real reason America used these weapons was to show Russia that the US possessed them. Second, the war in the Pacific had been raging for almost four years. The two battles immediately preceding the bomb decision were Iwo Jima and Okinawa, two battles where the Japanese fought to the death and the cost in American casualties was horrific. It was predicted that the invasion of the Japanese mainland at the Island of Kyushu -- scheduled for November of 1945 -- would be even worse. 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 in injuries and lives this would take. Also It is not beyond the possibility that a million or more Americans could have been killed had we landed. The Japanese had correctly guessed where we intended to land, and were ready and waiting for us. The casualties would have been high. Another reason the atomic bomb was justified is the bomb was dropped with a desire to save lives. It is a matter of math. How many Americans lost their lives fighting how many Japanese at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa. The mathematical formula showed the closer we got to Japan the more we lost.
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
Should We Have Dropped the Atomic Bomb? The atomic bomb killed many innocent people, but it was necessary to end World War II. After World War II began in 1939, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced the neutrality of the United States. Many people in the United States think that their country should stay out of the war. The people wanted the Allied Forces to have the victory.
The benefits that the bomb had on our society have been invaluable. Permitting the use of the atomic bomb was an atrocious mistake.In John Hersey's book, Hiroshima, he interviews a German priest serving in Japan. This priest, Father Kleinsorge, provides a first hand account of the immorality, justification, and consequences thereof; “The crux of the matter is whether total war in its present form is justifiable even when it s...
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 ...
On December 7, 1941 Japan launched a surprise attack on a U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii with the possibility of forcing the U.S. to join World War II. About 2,400 Americans were dead, 21 ships had been sunk, and 188 aircrafts were destroyed. On August 6 and 9 of 1945, the U.S. retaliated and dropped two atomic bombs called Fat Man and Little Boy on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The U.S. was not justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan because of the locations that were bombed, the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, and the lack of previous bomb testing.
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
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...
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
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...
Upon reading “Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan” by J. Samuel Walker, a reader will have a clear understanding of both sides of the controversy surrounding Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The controversy remains of whether or not atomic bombs should have been used during the war. After studying this text, it is clear that the first atomic bomb, which was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, was a necessary military tactic on ending the war. The second bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki, however, was an unnecessary measure in ensuring a surrender from the Japanese, and was only used to seek revenge.
Although WW II ended over 50 years ago there is still much discussion as to the events which ended the War in the Pacific. The primary event which historians attribute to this end are the use of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although the bombing of these cities did force the Japanese to surrender, many people today ask “Was the use of the atomic bomb necessary to end the war?” and more importantly “Why was the decision to use the bomb made?” Ronald Takaki examines these questions in his book Hiroshima.
The United States of America’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been a great influence on American history. The mass destruction of both the lives of civilians and the cities in Japan have influenced many different opinions. Some believe the dropping of the atomic bombs were essential, whereas others say it was uncalled for. The following will define and explain the opposing viewpoints of a utilitarian and a Kantian. It will delve into their responses to the additional Allied invasion, and will analyze and provide objections to their responses, while also providing my personal viewpoints on both perspectives.
"Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Justifiable?" The Pacific War 1941-43. Web. 10 June 2010.