More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of World War 2 from 1939 to 1945
Impacts of World War II on the people
The effects of World War 2 from 1939 to 1945
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effects of World War 2 from 1939 to 1945
Should the U.S. Have Dropped Atomic Weapons On Japan Decades after dropping atomic weapons on Japan during World War 2, Americans remain divided by one question: Were the attacks really necessary? They claimed almost 120,000 people instantly, and thousands more succumbed to issues related to the attacks. But what would’ve happened if the U.S. didn’t use these new weapons? Almost definately Japan would’ve been invaded, taking millions of lives of Japanese civilians and military personnel alike, and hundreds of thousands of American Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen. “When Harry Truman learned of the success of the Manhattan Project, the U.S. project to create atomic weapons, he knew he was faced with a decision of unprecedented gravity. The capacity to end the war with Japan was in his hands, but it would involve unleashing the most terrible weapon ever known ("The Decision to Drop the Bomb”).” The President rejected a …show more content…
By displaying the destruction and effects of atomic bombs on a populace directly, the U.S. showed the world “...a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, [which takes] the toll of many innocent lives. (Hirohito).” After WW2 ended and the Cold War began, the A-bombs were “used as a deterrent to keep the (sometimes uneasy) peace between the US and the USSR, and it achieved that. The Soviet Union had entered the war against Japan, and the atomic bomb could be read as a strong message for the Soviets to tread lightly. There are no cases of a direct, all-out war between the US and the Soviets that can be attributed to the potentially devastating effects of atomic weaponry (Mason).” Had the horror of atomic weapons not been so clearly demonstrated, the US and USSR would not have made it through the Cold War without using them, which would’ve lead to horrendous ramifications for the
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
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.
using the bombs during WWII not only to defeat the Japanese, but also to intimidate the Soviet Union and prove their power to the world. The U.S. knew Japan would surrender soon without the use of a destructive weapon. The Soviet Union definitely had some influence on the military decision made by the American government. As Professor Stoff mentioned in one of his lectures, Churchill believed Stalin was more dangerous than Hitler. Although the Soviet Union was an “ally” to America, they never really had an actual relationship. It was more of an alliance of convenience. The U.S. has always wanted to prove itself to be the best. Being the first country to have and use a nuclear weapon was a huge deal. As a result, President Truman told Stalin that we had a weapon and Stalin told us to use it. The U.S. also announced to Japan that we would use a weapon that would cause massive destruction and the majority of citizens ignored it. At the time, there was a threat that Russia would become a problem after the war. The U.S. dropped the bombs in Japan to end the war as quickly as possible to prevent Russia from gaining land in Asia. Therefore, the use of the bombs was not purely to defeat the
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.
...s who would do anything to win their war so a powerful weapon was needed to weaken their will. The bomb?s intense impact saved more soldiers? and civilians? lives involved in the war than it destroyed. The damage the atomic bombs produced was miniscule compared to the massacres the Japanese militarists created. The bomb clearly improved American foreign relations, especially with the Soviet Union. The choice to use the atomic bomb was justified because it coerced a Japanese surrender, saved countless lives, served as retribution for the sufferings of many people, and acted as an anti-Soviet deterrent.
When President Truman authorized the use of two nuclear weapons in 1945 against the Japanese in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, the nature of international security was changed irreversibly. At that time, the United States had what was said to have a monopoly of atomic bombs. Soon thereafter, the Soviet Union began working on atomic weaponry. In 1949, it had already detonated it first atomic bomb and tensions began to heat up between the two countries. With the information that the Soviets had tested their first bomb, the United States began work on more powerful weapons1, and a fight for nuclear superiority had begun.
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.
The development of the atomic bomb and chemical warfare forever changed the way people saw the world. It was a landmark in time for which there was no turning back. The constant balancing of the nuclear super powers kept the whole of humankind on the brink of atomic Armageddon. Fear of nuclear winter and the uncertainty of radiation created its own form of a cultural epidemic in the United States. During these tense times in human history officials made controversial decisions such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dangerous biological experiments and bombs tests were carried out in the name of the greater good and national defense. Some historians and scientists argue that the decisions and acts carried out by the U.S. during World War II and the Cold War were unethical because of the direct damage they did. The United States' decisions were moral because it can be proven their actions were aimed at achieving a greater good and those that were put in potential danger volunteered and were informed of the risk.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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...
Historian Robert James Maddox starts the debate by siding with Truman and states that he made the right decision in dropping the bomb. Maddox uses several influential meetings, speculations and the presidents’ personal opinions on the situation to defend his statement. Some examples he uses include, Japanese military power and mentality, saving American lives, and unconditional surrender. In short, because the use of the atomic bomb occurred, the Japanese military lost their lust to fight to the end, countless lives were saved, and Japan surrendered. Therefore, although many Japanese lives were lost in the conflict the right decision was made by Harry Truman to authorize the usage of the bombs.
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.