Pro: Drop Bomb on Japan The bombings of 1945 by the United States of America on Japan were very controversial events. Many historians believe these acts were aggressive and unnecessary. In addition, analysts argue that the U.S. should have used alternative methods instead of the bomb, but most do not realize the repercussions of these different tactics. On the contrary, the bomb was needed to ease tension quickly and effectively. Ultimately, the bomb proved more effective than any other method, and also proved to be a technique that is sufficient for America’s needs. The effort made by the U.S. to bomb Japan after their disapproval of the Potsdam Declaration was needed to end conflicts in the Pacific because of Japanese resistance, to save American lives, and to portray the U.S. as a nation of power and dominance. 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... ... middle of paper ... ... at War. Jackson: University of Mississippi, 1997. Print. Compton, Carl T. "If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used." The Atlantic Monthly 5 Aug. 2005: 54. Print. Donohue, Nathan. "Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Center for Strategic and International Studies. N.p., 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 4 Jan. 2014. Miller, Henry I. "The Nuking Of Japan Was A Tactical And Moral Imperative." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 01 Aug. 2012. Web. 4 Jan. 2014. "The Potsdam Conference, 1945." Milestones 1937–1945. The US Department of State Office of the Historian, n.d. Web. 28 Dec. 2013. Willbanks, James H. "Kamikazes: World War II." World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. Van Rhyn, Mark. "Bombing of Nagasaki: World War II." World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.
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...
To fully examine the factors that led to the United States to drop 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.
This investigation assesses President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will determine whether or not his decision was justified. This investigation will scrutinize the reasons that made Harry Truman feel inclined to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Preventing further casualties along with the desire to end the war are two argumentative points that will be analyzed to determine if they were strong enough to justify the dropping of the atomic bombs. Excerpts from Truman’s memoirs and a variety of different titles were consulted in order to undertake this investigation. Section C will evaluate two sources for their origins purposes values and limitations. The first is a book titled The Invasion of Japan written by John Stakes in 1955. And the second is a book titled Prompt & Utter Destruction written by J. Samuel Walker.
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.
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 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
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.
Angelina Jolie said, “Without pain, there would be no suffering, without suffering we would never learn from our mistakes. To make it right, pain and suffering is the key to windows, without it, there is no way of life.” On August 6, 1945 the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a small city whose death toll rises to 90,000-166,000. On August 9th, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, 60,000–80,000 . In total, 15 million people lost their lives during the duration of the Second World War. In John Hersey's book, Hiroshima, he provides a detailed account of six people and how the bombing of Hiroshima affected their lives. John Heresy felt it was important to focus his story on six individuals to create a remembrance that war affects more than just nations and countries, but actual human beings. Moreover, the book details the effect the bomb had on the city of Hiroshima. “Houses all around were burning, and the wind was now blowing hard.” (Hersey, 27). Before the bomb, there existed few laws to govern the use of a weapon of this magnitude because of the complexity and modern technology that the bomb used. To address the fears of the use of the atomic bomb, new laws were created to govern its use. The atom bomb should have been dropped on Japan in order to prevent the further use of such a destructive force.
Maddox, Robert. “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb.” Taking Sides: Clashing View in United States History. Ed. Larry Madaras & James SoRelle. 15th ed. New York, NY. 2012. 280-288.
C.S.C., W. D. (2011). The Most Controversial Decision Truman the atomic Bombs, and the defeat of Japan. University of Notre Dame: Cambridge University Press.
The year was 1945. World War II was nearly over. Germany had been defeated and the allied forces were sure to win the war. The only unsure thing was how many lives would be lost in defeating Japan. The United States decided to drop the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. On that day the Enola Gay dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. Three days later the United States dropped "Fat Boy" on Nagasaki. 240,000 civilians, mostly women and children, lost there lives on these two days. On August 14, 1945 Japan surrendered unconditionally. Was it necessary? I believe that the U.S. could have used other means to bring about the end of the war. This paper will note a few reasons for dropping the bomb, followed by a discussion of several alternatives to it's the use.
The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima which triggered incredible human suffering and brought about insightful allegations of the entire human race embodies one of the crucial events of the twentieth century. By scrutinizing the historical background and the incentives of the past leaders at the time, various individuals have established different viewpoints to evaluate whether the circumstances justified the decision to drop the atomic bomb. In this paper, I shall compare General Paul Tibbett's and Yoshikawa's Kawamoto's perspectives and how they differ from each other.
The launch of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945 will lead to a long controversy is the U.S. decision to destroy the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki responded to an exclusively military objective or also had political and diplomatic aspects? For some researchers could reach the Japanese surrender by blocking one end or through diplomatic channels. The fanatical behavior of Japanese suicide pilots was rather a manifestation of weakness and impotence of the resistance against the superior resources of the United States ... American submarines had cut supplies in March 1945 and an air raid on Tokyo U.S. effectively demonstrated this superiority.
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
"Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Justifiable?" The Pacific War 1941-43. Web. 10 June 2010.