Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
United States' entry into and role during WWII
Role of nuclear weapons essay
First world war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: United States' entry into and role during WWII
Dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima With the closing of the Second World War at hand, Harry S. Truman represented the United States in Potsdam Germany to decide the fate of a post war world. The key individuals in the conference consisted of the allied leaders, Soviet Premier Stalin, Prime Minister Churchill, and Truman. Dubbed the “big Three” in the second conference of the post war, they were charged with the daunting task of dealing with Japan and their continued effort in the ending war. The Potsdam Declaration was devised. It simply stated that Japan must immediately agree to an unconditional surrender or face total destruction. Japan would ignore this declaration (Scoenberger, 1969). In the summer of 1945, the war in the Pacific had dragged into its fourth year (Scoenberger, 1969). The amounted casualties and consumption of resources was enormous. Conventional bombing and ground forces are making little progress. The war was feared to last much longer. The Allies are looking toward a quick end to the last battles of the World War (Scoenberger, 1969). Japan showed no intention of surrendering or reaching an agreement of peace which was forcing the United States to look at new technologies. The United States had been looking into new weapons development throughout the war. Conventional bomb technology had seemingly reached an end state. The use of unconventional payloads was a new horizon. Started years earlier, a series of developmental projects were looking to use atomic energy as a weapon. The Manhattan project was one of the top secret test beds to develop the world’s first atomic bombs, “Fat Man” and “Little boy” (Hoddeson, 2009). The “Little Boy” would be used on Hiroshima. This was a gun type fis... ... middle of paper ... ... use of atomic weapons since these incidences. These events formed the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission. The National Academy of Science was also sent to conduct continued research on the after effects of radiation to the populous of both bombing sites (Truman). I am of the opinion that the use of atomic weapons in World War II and the subsequent studies enlighten the world on the new capabilities of weapon systems and delivery vehicles in the world. Without these tragic events, a much more catastrophic event may have occurred. History has set the stage for modern warfare, and currently the use of nuclear weapons is considered a last resort on a global scale. The world is entering a new age of warfare, with nation states and organizations engaging in non-standard conflict. The modern battle field cannot support these types of attacks. Tragic Lesson learned.
The Potsdam Conference occurred from July 17th to August 2nd, 1945. The conference took place between US president Harry Truman, Soviet’s Joseph Stain, and England’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The major goal of the Potsdam meeting was what would happen with Germany postwar. They wanted to be able to ensure the “eventual reconstruction of Germany’s democracy and peace.” At that time, the Soviet Union occupied a lot of the Eastern part of Germany and wanted a “unified, but unarmed Germany.” However, President Truman did not trust Stalin’s motives. In addition, Truman had found out that they had tested their atomic bomb and it was ready to be used in battle. Truman seeing the immense advantage the US had from a military standpoint knew he had leverage.
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 ...
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.
In fear that Nazi Germany was developing an atomic bomb, on December 6 1941, scientists, engineers and the army raced to build the first man-made atomic bomb. These combined efforts provide the United States with wartime military advantage was dubbed ‘The Manhattan Project’. However, when by late 1944, concrete intelligence confirmed that Germany’s work on atomic weaponry had basically stalled in 1942, many scientists were given cause to pause and reassess their commitment to the project. Joseph Rotblat, for instance, quit the project maintaining that, ‘the fact that the German effort was stillborn undermined the rationale for continuing’. Indeed, he was the exception. Nevertheless, the scientists’ apprehensions reached a high plateau when Germany surrendered in May 1945. These events, among others, suggested that the bomb would be used, if at all, against Japan (a reversal, in a way, of the racism and genocide issues within Germany). Many scientists, thus, began to debate among themselves the moral and ethical implications of using an atomic bomb in the war and the fate of humanity in the imminent atomic age. In doing so, the scientists with a stronger sense of responsibility, resolved that, as they had created the bomb, they possessed both the legitimacy and intellect to formulate proposals regarding its use. On their political mission, the scientists fastened...
“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.
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.
Continuing on, the bombing of Japan was also unnecessary due to the unacceptable terms of the Potsdam Declaration. After Germany’s surrender on May 7, 1945, the U.S. created a treaty, called the Potsdam Declaration, with terms of surrender for Japan (Lawton). Among those terms was one which stated, “We call upon the government of Japan to ...
Never in U.S. History has the fate of millions laid in the hands of one man, President Harry S. Truman. Truman became president after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt in April, 1945. This shift into presidency left Truman with the choice to use atomic weaponry for the first time in human history. Truman’s decision to use atomic bombs depends on scenarios provided by the Secretary of War Henry Stimson and the Secretary of State James Byrnes. Both secretaries have substantial justifications for their arguments in which either decision possesses implications that will change the status of the war and the world. While Truman’s decision will be elaborated on at the end of this piece it is beneficial to establish an appropriate standpoint for Truman. Ultimately, Truman’s choice to utilize an atomic bomb is up to him. Nonetheless, it is justifiable to claim that implementing an atomic bomb against Japan is a suitable decision because there is a higher probability of saving more military and civilian lives than a full-scale invasion.
The United States’ decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima required extensive research leading to its production. The main goal of the American side was to damage the enemy’s confidence, while choosing a target with the highest military output in order to conclude the war (Robinson).The group in charge of developing the technology was known as the Manhattan Project, and was kept top-secret. Selection began in the spring of 1945, with assistance from the Commanding General, Army Air Forces, his Headquarters (Robinson).There was a variety of experts working on the project, including mathematicians, theoretical physicists, and specialists trained in weather and blast effects Headquarters (Robinson). In order to monitor all of the results, the city had to be untouched, meaning the target had to have no signs of previous bombings. Based on these requirements, the designation of Hiroshima for the bombing was not a simple determination. After a target was selected and the weapon was developed, testing was set to begin. On July 16, 1945, the first test in Alamogordo, New Mexico, proved that the bomb was prepared for release onto...
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...
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...
The primary goal of this extreme force was to bring a swift end to the war in the Pacific, (Walker) but a secondary goal was to display the military and technological might of the United States to allies and rivals around the world (Walker). The use of multiple nuclear weapons made it clear to Japan and the world that Truman's threat of “utter destruction” was intended to be carried out unless Japan delivered what the United States wantedunconditional surrender (Cite). The potential use of atomic weapons against the Japanese was appealing to the United States because it was seen as a dramatic and decisive way to end the war (Walker, ). Prior to the decision to use nuclear weapons, Japan and the United States were at odds over the terms by which the Japanese would surrender to the Americans, which did nothing but prolong the military conflict (Walker, ). Japanese leadership had expressed its desire to end the war to third parties, but could not come to an agreement over what terms would be acceptable for their surrender (Walker, 47)....
The Cold War was a political standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States that again created a new worldwide nuclear threat. The destructive potential of nuclear weapons has created a global sweep of fear as to what might happen if these terrible forces were unleashed again. The technology involved in building the first atomic bombs has grown into the creation of nuclear weapons that are potentially 40 times more powerful than the original bombs used. However, a military change in strategy has come to promote nuclear disarmament and prevent the usage of nuclear weapons. The technology of building the atomic bomb has spurred some useful innovations that can be applied through the use of nuclear power.
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?
"Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Justifiable?" The Pacific War 1941-43. Web. 10 June 2010.