How different would the world be if America had never dropped the bomb on Japan to end World War II? If America had simply offered Japan a way to surrender by simply threatening the use of the atomic bomb, would Japan have surrendered? The world will never know, however Leo Szilard, one of the scientists that created the atomic bomb, tried to make a plea for this to happen. A month before the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in WWII, Leo Szilard and 59 scientists stood up for what they believed in and tried to alter the thinking and decision that the President was making. Leo Szilard structured his petition in a way that was an easy to follow and navigate argument. While a thesis statement is typically found at the beginning of a paper in Szilard employed ethos by stating “We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power for a number of years.” (Szilard) This showed that these men had the authority to make the argument for they knew what the atomic bomb would do when deployed. The author used logos when stating to the President that they understood that the atomic was an effective means of ending the war, however, they presented an idea of presenting the Japanese with terms so that they could have the opportunity to surrender or we were going to use this weapon. These statements provided a logical way to end the argument and not have to use the bomb. Leo Szilard used the support of pathos to present the most emotional argument. “Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.” (Szilard) He wanted to appeal to the President that if he used the bomb, other nations could come up with the same and return the attack on American soil and he wanted the President to feel how the American public would feel about
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.
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 bombings of 1945 by the United States of America on Japan were very controversial events. Many historians believe these acts were aggressive and unnecessary. In addition, analysts argue that the U.S. should have used alternative methods instead of the bomb, but most do not realize the repercussions of these different tactics. On the contrary, the bomb was needed to ease tension quickly and effectively. Ultimately, the bomb proved more effective than any other method, and also proved to be a technique that is sufficient for America’s needs. The effort made by the U.S. to bomb Japan after their disapproval of the Potsdam Declaration was needed to end conflicts in the Pacific because of Japanese resistance, to save American lives, and to portray the U.S. as a nation of power and dominance.
...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.
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.
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 ...
Not only did the bomb end the war quicker, but it surprisingly resulted in less casualties. The atomic bomb is always known for killing a mass load of people and truckloads of destruction costs, but less people were killed due to it’s effects. Before the bomb was dropped the U.S. was firebombing Japanese cities and caused huge amounts of damage. The U.S. firebombed 65 cities and left some down to ashes while others took the attacks well. “One of these raids killed about 125,000 people, the other nearly 100,000. Of the 210 square miles of greater Tokyo, 85 square miles of the densest part were destroyed as completely for practical purposes, as were the centers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” (Text 2 Page 4). The firebombing raids killed a ton of
On August 6, 1945 an American atomic bomb with the potential to incinerate anything in a one-mile radius was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days after the attack on Hiroshima, another atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan with the same catastrophic effects. It was, indeed, a climactic point in history, but was it really necessary? The dropping of the bombs was not necessary, because it was predicted before that Japan would have lost the war anyways even if there were no atomic bombs dropped.
Using the Atomic Bomb ended the war. It was no secret that Japan was going to continue to fight until they were all dead, the Americans just needed to make it clear that they were already finished with the war. After the two bombs were dropped the United States was even so generous that they weren’t going to make Japan have an unconditional surrender. The United States let Japan keep their emperor Hirohito. The U.S. also made a constitution for Japan that said that granted full freedom for their citizens. (The United States and Japan After World War II)The people of Japan knew that something bad was going to happen. The U.S. sent leaflets to Hiroshima and Nagasaki that told them to leave and that their city would be bombed so that they could finish the war.(Warning Leaflets)
The United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the World War. There is a huge controversy whether or not we should’ve dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during World War II. All of these people have valid reasons to think the way they do. Some people think that the United States did the right thing by dropping the atomic bomb in Japan. Other people think that there were other ways that we could’ve showed Japan how much power the United States harbors. Personally, I think that we did the right thing by dropping the bomb, because for us America comes before other countries.
In the late 1930’s, while the world was at war, the U.S remained neutral through most of the chaos until 1941. Once they became involved, their actions would be found questionable in the future on the basis of morality and/or whether it was acceptable to atomically try to destroy a nation. Today, it could still be debated on whether or not President Harry S. Truman should have made that decision while clouded with hurt patriotism or just as revenge, but without a doubt, the attack on Pearl Harbor would only create additional disagreements and another division on the issue of race. After Pearl Harbor, another immense piece of U.S history would be tarnished by their own actions and attitude towards Japanese-Americans. Even so, with all of these
The use of the atomic bomb by the United States against Japan in World War II from a political perspective was justified because it showed America's strength which intimidated the Russians who were becoming a problem for the United States. American General Hull said that Russian expansion after the war was "inescapable" and that ending the war as soon as possible was important to reducing the Russian expansion. He also thought if the Russians joined the war in the Pacific they would take over much of China. Using the atomic bomb was the fastest way to end the war due to its devastating power. Arthur H. Compton said that the use of the atomic bomb would give America an advantage over the Russians and the world in terms of the inevitable arms
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be in a war zone that was destroyed by atomic bombs? This essay will tell you what the atomic bomb is and what it does.
In the early morning of August 6 1945, a United States Army weather observation plane took off from Tinian air base toward the Japanese interior. As the plane neared Hiroshima City at an altitude of 10.000 meters, it sent a message to the B29 Enola Gay, which was following it and carrying the atomic bomb. Hiroshima was chosen as the primary target since it had remained largely untouched by bombing raids, and the bomb's effects could be clearly measured. While President Truman had hoped for a purely military target, some advisers believed that bombing an urban area might break the fighting will of the Japanese people. Hiroshima was a major port and a military headquarters,
are going to say about your topic. Thesis statements often come at the end of the introductory paragraph. This