World War II was the most devastating war in the world’s history, causing an immense amount of death, due to both battle and genocide. That being said, what marked the end of said war was the United States of America’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan (Frieden et al. 23). Prior to this, what had compelled the United States to take action in the war was the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 (Frieden et al. 22). To add, during the time of the United States joining the war, they had developed and “first tested [the atomic bomb] in New Mexico on July 16, 1945. (The Atomic Bombings). Subsequently after Germany had surrendered in the war, in July, “Japan’s militarist government rejected the Allied demand for surrender put forth in …show more content…
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was one of the most atrocious attacks to have ever happened on American soil, starting with disagreement on the Potsdam declaration. Japan’s greed for more land and industrial materials led the Japanese to make a plan to keep the United States out of the war, which consisted the use of kamikaze pilots and bombs to destroy our aircraft carriers and boats in an attempt to control the Pacific. While leaving the drowning, and dead bodies of thousands of American seamen and battleships at the bottom of the sea, seemed to be a good idea to the Japanese; America joined World War II and introduced the first nuclear weapons as reprisal for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Had the Japanese agreed to an unconditional surrender and end to militarism during the agreement on the Potsdam declaration, the introduction to nuclear weapons and the death count wouldn’t have been so high and devastating on both the American and Japanese sides.
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
“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.
Due to the devastation between 1941 and 1945, approximately half a million American lives were consumed in response to defend the United States. In contrary to the declination of intensity of World War II in the European hemisphere, Japan does not gestures any signs of retreat on the Pacific in the spring of 1945. Japanese confrontation, Iwo Jima and Okinawa alone, accounts for more than 18,000 American deaths and 36,000 wounded. Pressure weighed heavy as President Harry Truman entered office. The rise of information reached Truman on the Manhattan Project in which research was invested in the upcoming manufacturing of the World`s first atomic bomb. The use of nuclear warfare remains questionable. Americans confounded by the bombing of Hiroshima
On August 6, 1945 the United States unleashed a weapon upon the Japanese city of Hiroshima, the likes of which the world had never seen. Then, on August 9 a second weapon was deployed against the Japanese, at Nagasaki. The weapons used were atomic bombs: nuclear fission devices capable of massive destructive capabilities. It is estimated that more than 250,000 Japanese citizens died as a result of the two bombs being dropped. While the employment of these weapons led to the end of World War II, it also forced the world into the nuclear age where man had the power to destroy cities and in some cases, ensure the destruction of entire nations.
As World War 2, came to a close, The United States unleashed a secret atomic weapon upon the enemy nation of Japan that was quickly recognized as the most powerful wartime weapon in human history. They completely destroyed the entire Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and essentially vaporized countless innocent Japanese lives. Some historians believe that it was a foolish, brutal decision to use the atomic bomb on a weakened Japan, and that the civilians of the country did not deserve that kind of mass-annihilation. On the opposite side, other historians assert that dropping the bomb saved countless American and Japanese lives by ending the war faster than a regular invasion would have. What is undisputed is that this sad event dramatically changed the course of human history.
What neorealism believes is fear and distrust originated from the anarchy of international system, resulting in the pursuit of power for survival. As stated by Mearsheimer (2010), power is the currency of international politics. The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power. All states desire sufficient power to protect th...
December 7, 1941 was the day Japan attacked the United States, and as a result the United States retaliated against Japan by dropping two atomic bombs in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the start of ending the Second World War, and was the start of trying to cope with the lost loved ones killed at Pearl Harbor. Many Japanese citizens and soldiers died when the bombs touched down, but it was for the great or good. If not for Harry Truman's decision on dropping the bombs, the United States and Japan would have lost many more lives than just dropping the two atomic bombs. Although it may seem cruel to drop the two atomic bombs named Fat Man and Little Boy on Japan, it was the best decision
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...
middle of paper ... ... Unfortunately, this idea of a zero sum military power game does not match up with reality. Each state takes actions based on the given situation and neo-realism misses this nuance. Constructivism actually considers this more by analyzing the actors at play and their identities and interests.
The United States entered WW II immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The U.S. entry was a major turning point in the war because it brought the strongest industrial strength to the Allied side. The Americans helped the Allies to win the war in Europe with the surrender of Germany on May 7, 1945. However, the war in the Pacific continued. The war with Japan at this point consisted primarily of strategic bombings. America had recently completed an atomic bomb and was considering using this weapon of mass destruction for the first time. The goal was to force the “unconditional surrender” of the Japanese. Roosevelt had used the term “unconditional surrender” in a press conference in 1943 and it had since become a central war aim. Truman and his staff (still feeling bound by FDR’s words) demanded unconditional surrender from the Japanese. Consequently on July 26, 1945 Truman issued an ultimatum to Japan. This ultimatum stated that Japan must accept “unconditional surrender” or suffer “utter devastation of the Japanese Homeland”. This surrender included abdication of the throne by their emperor. Japan was not willing to surrender their dynasty and ignored the ultimatum. On August 6th and August 9th, atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively.
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
I say this because it is very evident that there is no single ruler of the world and that there is not one institution that enforces laws throughout the entire international system. Neorealism acknowledges the struggle for power between states, but not in an animalistic manner as realism views. I do not believe that human nature is innately evil and for which that is the reason why all states act rationally by trying to overpower the other. I believe that the realm of anarchy creates an environment that promotes conflict over conflicting values or laws. Each state has their own set of laws that may or may not agree with the laws and culture of another state. Anarchy in the international system forces the theory of realism to concentrate on absolute gains from conflict and how necessary it is to engage in conflict with another state (34 Walt). Neorealism provides a basic, all-including analysis that encompasses many aspects of the international system without excluding
The prominent scholar of Political Science, Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of neorealism, has proposed controversial realist theories in his work. Publications such as "Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis", "Theory of International Politics” and “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate,” demonstrate how Waltz's approach was motivated by the American military power. In acquaintance of this fact, the purpose of this paper is to critically analyze Waltz theoretical argument from the journal "Structural Realism after the Cold War". Firstly, this paper will indicate the author's thesis and the arguments supporting it. Secondly, limitations found in theoretical arguments will be illustrated and thirdly, synergies between the author's thesis and this analysis will be exposed.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.