More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects after the atomic bomb
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki influence
The impacts of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a terrible effect on the people around them, but it the decision to do so was necessary. The Japanese were being very aggressive and the controversial decision had to be made even though the effect was great. The bombs had ended up ending one of the most gruesome wars in history. They potentially saved other lives from being taken. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have drawn many different opinions. Some even think that the bombing was inhumane (Barnes p.7). The outbreak of the war was near and the American Government feared that the Nazis were conduction atomic bomb research and were in fact very close to developing one. Germany had achieved nuclear …show more content…
Some even say that these health issues are still occurring to this day. Scientists say they think that some of the deaths were caused by the force of the bomb, the heat of it, and then acute radiation exposure. Other than the deaths that were beyond abundant other issues were birth defects and cancers. The most deadly cancer and long term effect was the outbreak of Leukemia. It broke out 2 years after the bombing and did not even reach its peak until 4 to 6 years later. Other cancers did not really increase in their amount of cases until ten years after the bombings. They then started tumor registries to study the risks of the cancers and the more solid cancers (Listwa p.2-3). Studies showed that the attributable rat of radiation exposure to solid cancer was lower than to Leukemia (Listwa p.3).” Children were more affected than the adults and babies that were in their mother’s uterus at the time. However there were still defects among the …show more content…
The United States made the best decision they could even though the effect was great. There are many different aspects and opinions on the decision of President Truman to do this and it will always be a controversial topic. Works Cited Barnes, Michael. “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: Arguments Against The Bomb.” 1/13/2013. www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-abombdecision/3against/. Accessed 20 October 2017. “Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” A+E Networks, 2009. www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki. Accessed 16 October 2017.” Listwa, Dan. “Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects.” 8/9/2012. www.k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki. Accessed 23 October 2017. Marston, Daniel. “The Pacific War Companion” From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima. Osprey Publishing, 2005. Stimson, Henry L. "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb." ["Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb"]. Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, 8/1/2017, p. 1. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=khh&AN=21212319&site=hrc-live. Accessed 17 October
We agree that, whatever be one’s judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible. The “8 Primary Pros and Cons of Dropping the Atomic Bomb” People also say how Japan was already defeated, concluding why the bombs were unnecessary. Although, many others say that the dropping of the atomic bombs saved their lives, but the debate over the decision to drop the atomic bomb will never be resolved. The war against Japan bestowed the Allies with entirely new problems as they encountered an enemy with utterly unfamiliar tactics.
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
...ar the use of weapons of this magnitude, the American idea of the Japanese people has changed, and we now have set up preventions in the hope of avoiding the use of nuclear weaponry. John Hersey provides a satisfactory description of the atomic bombing. Most writers take sides either for or against the atom bomb. Instead of taking a side, he challenges his readers to make their own opinions according to their personal meditations. On of the key questions we must ask ourselves is “Are actions intended to benefit the large majority, justified if it negatively impacts a minority?” The greatest atrocity our society could make is to make a mistake and not learn from it. It is important, as we progress as a society, to learn from our mistakes or suffer to watch as history repeats itself.
This essay will explain through logic reasoning and give detailed reasons as to why the United States did not make the right choice. 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 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 classified documents, we can see that the United States could have made the choice to use other alternatives besides the use of the atomic weapon.... ... middle of paper ...
While on the other hand, another thesis claims that the act of dropping the atomic bomb was complexly justifiable and not a war crime. Both sides had their weakness, however, they both had strong logical points. The first thesis strongest point was that without a doubt the use of the atomic bomb was a war crime because it killed so many and those whom it did not kill are left suffering. Thus, this argument contributes to present day fears of nuclear wars. In contrast, the second thesis is that even though the use of the atomic bomb may seem like a war crime. nevertheless, it was still justifiable because the allies did not know for sure if the Japanese were to surrender and the longer they would wait the more lives that would be
Donohue, Nathan. "Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." CSIS.org. CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies, 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 07 Jan. 2014.
“The atomic bomb certainly is the most powerful of all weapons, but it is conclusively powerful and effective only in the hands of the nation which controls the sky” (Johnson 1). Throughout World War II, the war was in pieces. The Germans were almost at world domination along with their allies, the Italians and Japanese. The Japanese and United states had remained at combat with each other since the bombarding of the Pearl Harbor ("U.S. Drops Atomic Bomb on Japan "1). There was abundant controversy as to whether the United States should have used the atomic bombs or not. There were many factors as to the argument relating to the atomic bombs leading to the United States final decision. Many people had arguments for the bombing and others had arguments against the bombings but it is still not determined if the United States made the right decision.
“My God, what have we done?” were the words that the co-pilot of Enola Gay wrote in his logbook after helping drop two bombs, one in Hiroshima and one in Nagasaki, that killed an estimated two-hundred thousand individuals. The bombings were completely unnecessary. Japan was already defeated because they lacked the necessary materials to continue a world war. The Japanese were prepared to surrender. There was no military necessity to drop the atomic bombs nor is there any factual information stating that the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped to “save the lives of one million American soldiers.” The United States bombed Japan in August of 1945. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were uncalled for and could have been avoided.
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...
The Revisionists and the orthodox views are different opinions on President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb. The revisionists believed that Truman’s decision was wrong and there could have been alternatives. They say that the Bomb was unnecessary and it was only used as a “diplomatic tool” and to show the power of th...
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.
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.
The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki The long lasting effects of the atomic bomb dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified by the United States. The United States had no other choice, or the war would just go on, which would be unfavorable for both the United States and Japan. The first reason why the US’s choice to use Atomic Bombs was justified is that it saved many soldiers’ lives. If the war had continued, many more lives on both the United States and Japan’s side would have been lost.
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.