Why President Truman Decided to Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
At 02:45 August 6th 1945, the B-29 Superfortress the Enola Gay took
off from the specially lengthened North Field on the Island of Tinian
in the Marianas. The plane piloted by Colonel Paul Tibbets was 7 tons.
At 0815 hours the bomb doors of the B-29 opened and flying at
approximately 32,000 ft the uranium based atom bomb code-named “Little
Boy” was unleashed upon the city of Hiroshima. Over 70,000 men women
and children were killed by blast alone. And over the next half
century approximately another 40,000 would die from related illnesses.
With this 70,000 were wounded at Hiroshima. The co-pilot of the Enola
Gay could see, “smoke and fires creeping up the side of the mountain”.
Then again on August 9th a second holocaust was unleashed on Nagasaki.
“…a giant ball of fire rose as though from the bowels and a giant
pillar of purple fire…shooting skyward and with enormous speed” The
effects of the bomb here were much less spectacular than at Hiroshima.
There were only 80,000 initial casualties of which 40,000 were dead.
Japan surrendered to the allied forces on August 14th, 1945. Emperor
Hirohito made the announcement to a stunned nation,
“I can not endure the thought of letting my people suffer any longer.
A continuation of the war would bring death to tens, perhaps hundreds,
of thousands of persons, the whole nation would be reduced to ashes”.
Who had ordered this barbaric act, and for what purpose?
To find the answer we examine the military situation surrounding the
final stages of the war on Japan, Americas diplomatic rivalry with
Russia, the need to app...
... middle of paper ...
...ium bomb was dropped on
Nagasaki. The USSR still held onto large areas of Eastern Europe and
forced communism onto the held territories. The bombing showed the
Russians what incredible power the new weapon had. If the USSR were to
keep up the balance with America then they too must have one. This set
the scene for the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR, it
was democracy against communism, an “iron curtain” descended across
Europe and already the Cold War had begun. If the Cold War prevented a
more conventional war between the two superpowers then the fact that
they both had weapons of mass destruction acted as each others
deterrent. And so if this is the case then the use of the bomb
although unknown at the time has been justified, as it is the only
time that a weapon of its kind has ever been used in anger.
The first reason on why Truman made the right decision was because the atomic bomb ultimately helped to prevent the deaths of American troops. There would have been over 100,000 losses during the first stage of the attack against Japan, leading to over one million casualties of just Americans during the defeat of Japan(Tucker 1). Although there is no way to confirm the amount of predicted deaths, any amount of American deaths would have been avoided with the use of the atomic bomb. Comparing a million predicted deaths of Americans to the 140,000 (±10,000) that were actually killed in the Hiroshima bomb(Faragher 4), the decision implementing the bomb was executed in the correct way.
Truman had thought through the possibilities and had decided that using the bomb would be the most effective and quickest tactic. As a president Truman had a responsibility to protect his country, citizens, and foreign affairs, so deciding on the best method to establish everybody’s needs was difficult. There were many things to worry about: fighting on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, bombing Japan, and building the bomb. His decision was mainly based on how the US citizens felt and the following actions of japan. Japan refused to accept an unconditional surrender, which was demanded by the allied powers in order to stop the war against them. On August 6, 1945 Truman allowed Enola Gay to drop the atomic bomb on top of Hiroshima and later Nagasaki to end the war.
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...
The atomic bombs “Little Boy” and “Fat man” killed 150,0000 people and furthermore left 125,000 impaired. 60,000 more people had died from sustained injuries as well as radiation illness. (Sullivan)
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.
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).
The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was completely justified in both cause and impact. An intense weapon was necessary to force a quick Japanese surrender. The bomb saved thousands upon thousands of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost if the war continued or an invasion occurred. The bomb was the only way to end the suffering of the millions who were being held captive by the Japanese oppressor. The weapon of mass destruction also sent a powerful message to the shaky Soviet allies. The choice to use the atomic bomb was justified because it compelled a Japanese surrender, saved countless lives, served as retribution for the sufferings of many people, and acted as an anti-Soviet deterrent.
However, it was not the case, the Soviets acknowledged the atomic bomb and wanted to create as many as possible so they could yield the control not only in the Pacific, but in the Eastern Europe. In the words of former US senator from South Carolina, James F. Byrnes, claimed “the bomb provided a unique opportunity to check Soviet control of Eastern Europe and Asia in the postwar years, and he very much wanted to delay or avert the entry of the Soviet Union into the war with Japan” (59). In the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, all the Allied countries, except the Soviets, stood together in preparing for the end of the World War 2. President Truman, learning of the success of the Manhattan project, and understanding that he must make a choice whether to drop the atomic bomb or not turned out to be the most difficult decision to make in his life. They came up with a decision to make Japan “unconditional surrender” (59) but they were afraid the Japan would not step down and refused to give up their fight.
The atomic bomb is the subject of much controversy. Since its first detonation in 1945, the entire world has heard the aftershocks of that blast. Issues concerning Nuclear Weapons sparked the Cold War. We also have the atomic bomb to thank for our relative peace in this time due to the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The effects of the atomic bomb might not have been the exact effects that the United States was looking for when they dropped Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively (Grant, 1998). The original desire of the United States government when they dropped Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not, in fact, the one more commonly known: that the two nuclear devices dropped upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki were detonated with the intention of bringing an end to the war with Japan, but instead to intimidate the Soviet Union. The fact of Japan's imminent defeat, the undeniable truth that relations with Russia were deteriorating, and competition for the division of Europe prove this without question.
A huge proponent to the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9 of 1945 was President Harry Truman. Although they value the ideas and contributions out in by the committee they choose, the president ultimately has the last say on war time decisions. It just so happens that President Truman wanted to drop the bomb. President Truman believed that Japan's leaders would not surrender to the terms outlined in Potsdam meeting. He saw it fit to drop the bombs and end all doubt.
After Truman decided to bomb Japan, they had to plan it out. They first had to decide where to release the bomb. They ended up choosing Hiroshima, Japan and Nagasaki, Japan as their two locations. Hiroshima was a significant military city in the war. It confined two army headquarters and was Japan’s communication center (World War 2 Atomic Bomb 1). Hiroshima was also a huge industrial city and had not been bombed before so it would let Japan see the wrath of the United States (Koeller 1). The planning and actual event of the bombing went great. On August 6, 1945 at 8:15 in the morning the bomb was dropped. The bomb that landed in Hiroshima was called the “Little Boy” (World War 2 Atomic Bomb 2). The bomb ended up killing about 170,000 people. 70,000 people died the first day and 100,000 people died in the next few months due to the radioactivity of the bomb and burns fro...
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 ...
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.
On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb used in warfare against the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later on August 9th, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. Just six days after the second atomic explosion, Japan announced its unconditional surrender to the United States after almost four years of war. Philosophers have argued that President Truman took a utilitarian point of morals when deciding to use nuclear weapons: do what is best for the largest number of people. Others say he blatantly ignored Kant’s teachings regarding the morality of attacking non-combatants. Regardless, President Truman was faced with one of the most morally difficult decisions any
First of all, President Truman shouldn’t have initiated this savage way of ending a war. He could’ve found an alternate route by either cutting of the Japanese’s supplies and resources and force the people to surrender. Also Truman could’ve just fought out the war with Japan instead of just bombing their land and killing many innocent lives. According to Truman’s diary, Truman even wrote in his diaries that he did not know how extensive and lethal this nuclear bomb was. He claimed that his main intention to bomb Hiroshima was to test out the strength of the nuclear bomb and stop the war. But I think Truman went too far with this testing of his, this little test that he pursued to fire at the Japanese had caused many lives. "I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, and it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of J...