More handpicked essays just for you.
Justifications for dropping an atomic bomb
Was the us justified in dropping the atomic bomb argumentative essay
Reasons for dropping the atomic bomb
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The dropping of the atomic bomb may be one of the most controversial topics in American history. Could there have been another way to end the war without obliterating two Japanese cities? Several historians have taken a side and stated their interpretation of the situation. There are numerous factors that can sway the argument either way depending upon how influential you determine those factors to be. Some main historians that debated this topic are Robert Maddox, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, and Gar Alperovitz. Each of these historians provides us with different insight, and a different answer to the question, was it necessary to drop the atomic bomb to end World War II?
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.
One of, if not the most influential part, of allowing the bombs to drop is because of the mentality of the Japanese military and the pull they had in politics. As Maddox stated, “[t]he army, not the Foreign Office controlled the situation” (Maddox, pg. 286). Although Japan had an influential leader in regards to their emperor, the military wanted to and would have engag...
... middle of paper ...
...ecessary. With that being said, dropping the bombs did stop Soviet intervention and involvement in Japan. Therefore, if you think ahead they are fulfilling their commitment to containment. Regardless, in terms of a way to end World War II the atomic bomb was not necessary.
Works Cited
Alperovitz, G. (1995). Hiroshima: Historians reassess. Foreign Policy, (99), 15. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224041592?accountid=27700
Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. “Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman and the Surrender of Japan.” Taking Sides: Clashing View in United States History. Ed. Larry Madaras & James SoRelle. 15th ed. New York, NY. 2012. 289-298.
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.
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.
On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over Hiroshima. Three days later, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. On August 15th, the Japan announced unconditional surrender in World War II. To this day historians still discuss why the U.S. decided to use the atomic bombs. Orthodox historians argue that the decision to drop the bombs was a military one designed purely to defeat the Japanese. Revisionist historians argue that the bombs were not needed to defeat Japan; the bombs were meant to shape the peace by intimidating the Soviets. After analyzing the documents in The Manhattan Project it has become clear that the U.S. used the bombs during WWII not only to defeat the Japanese, but also to intimidate the Soviet Union
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.
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 point 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 once classified documents, we can see that the United States ...
President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the direct cause for the end of World War II in the Pacific. The United States felt it was necessary to drop the atomic bombs on these two cities or it would suffer more casualties. Not only could the lives of many soldiers have been taken, but possibly the lives of many innocent Americans. The United States will always try to avoid the loss of American civilians at all costs, even if that means taking lives of another countries innocent civilians.
There were many arguments and factors as to if Truman decided correctly and if the United States should have dropped the bombs. There were many disputes supporting the bombing. Some being the Japanese were warned early enough, it shortened the war, and it saved many Americans lives. There are also voluminous quarrels against the United States bombing the Japanese. Some of these are the bombing killed innocent Japanese civilians who did not deserve it, the Japanese was about to surrender before we bombed them, and the United States only blasted the Japanese because of racism toward them. Though there are many valid reasons for and against the bombing, there is still much controversy today whether president Truman made the right decision.
On December 7, 1941 Japan launched a surprise attack on a U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii with the possibility of forcing the U.S. to join World War II. About 2,400 Americans were dead, 21 ships had been sunk, and 188 aircrafts were destroyed. On August 6 and 9 of 1945, the U.S. retaliated and dropped two atomic bombs called Fat Man and Little Boy on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The U.S. was not justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan because of the locations that were bombed, the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, and the lack of previous bomb testing.
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 Japanese were unpredictable. If Harry Truman had not dropped the bombs over Japan it would have only brought on further casualties.
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...
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.
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. Admittedly, dropping the atomic bomb was a major factor in Japan's decision to accept the terms laid out in the Potsdam agreement, otherwise known as unconditional surrender. The fact must be pointed out, however, that Japan had already been virtually defeated.
"Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Justifiable?" The Pacific War 1941-43. Web. 10 June 2010.
On August 6 and August 9, 1945, the cities and people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan would experience something that no other people had ever experienced before, and no other people have experienced since. Within three days in the month of August 1945 and nearing the end of World War II, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan would become the testing ground and their people the test dummies for a new kind of war weapon: the atomic bomb. Was this act necessary to bring an end to World War II, as has been claimed? No, it was not. For months, many of Japan’s cities had suffered a never-ending attack of weapons raining down on them by American military forces.
On August 6, 1945, The United States made one of the most disputed dictions in history; was it right to drop a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. History will forever judge President Truman’s decision on whether it was morally right or wrong. Looking at the decision from a philosophical point of view it was morally right to drop the bomb according to utilitarianism, egoism, objectivism, and prescriptivism.