More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of the atomic bomb on the world
Harry S Truman decision to use the atomic bomb
Harry S Truman decision to use the atomic bomb
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
On August 6, 1945 to August 9, 1945, during World War II, an American bomber dropped the world's first two deployed atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which resulted in an explosion that wiped out 90 percent of the city. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was known for the following two things: the mass murder of a million innocent lives, and the end of World War II. After analyzing the sources provided, it is evident that the use for atomic bombs was equally argued for and against because on one side, many believe that a purely technical demonstration of the atomic bombs would have also caused the war to cease, and on the other, countless do not and view direct military use the most efficient. On side …show more content…
a million of innocent lives would have been spared, but on the other hand, the chance for more American blood to be spilled. To begin, the arguments against the use of the atomic bombs are that a mere demonstration of the magnitude of the nuclear weapon would have sufficed and avoided the mass obliteration of a million innocent women and children. In artifact 1, it states that "the range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of the military application is best designed to induce surrender." Many preferred this option because "the Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons" (artifact 3). Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, Lewis Strauss, was the one who proposed to "Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic" (artifact 5). If a demonstration were to take place "demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will" (artifact 5). As you can see, the use of the atomic bomb was viewed by numerous people as fruitless. To continue, along with those who perceived the bombing as futile, came the argument that is resulted in the dissolution of countless innocent women and children. Admiral William Leahy, who was present at the scene, states that "wars cannot be won by destroying women and children" (Artifact 3). Many of the casualties that occurred and the survivors that were interviewed, expressed how shocked and confused they were. One of the experiences accounted for were of a elementary school kid that was in the middle of class when the bomb struck. He talked about how there was a big flash of light, obliteration of items everywhere, and the river next to the school consumed with deceased bodies. With this being said, it is irrefutable that to the people who opposed the use of the atomic bombs the magnitude of the death toll on these two cities was outrageous and unnecessary. On the other hand, the argument for the use of the atomic bomb was that there was no acceptable alternative to direct military use of the weapon.
The counter argument against demonstrating the bomb to the Japanese people was expressed by the countless scientist that were working on the bomb. One of the scientists, Dr. Stimson, stated the following: "a 'demonstration' of the A-bomb was impossible because we had only two bombs. Had we staged a 'demonstration' both bombs might have been duds and then we would have lost face. Now, this argument is clearly invalid. It is quite true that at the time of Hiroshima we had only two bombs, but it would not have been necessary to wait for very long before we would have had several more" (Artifact 4). As you can see, even though many believed a demonstration of an atomic bomb would have been dramatic enough to cease the war, it wasn't possible because the Bomb builders and scientist working on them didn't have any to spare. Also, the side that was for the use of nuclear weapons believed that the demonstration, if possible, wouldn't have been effective because, as Dr. Leo Szilard states, "I don't believe this staging a demonstration was the real issue, and in a sense it is just as immoral to force a sudden ending of a war by threatening violence as by using violence" (artifact 4). With this being said, it is incontestable that a demonstration would not have been enough to end war, which is why the U.S. used the atomic bombs. Furthermore, when Harry Truman was contemplating the use for the atomic bomb he viewed the death ratio as the following: "such an invasion would cost at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties, and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone" (Artifact 2). It is incontrovertible that when you demoralize the situation the death toll would have been higher if the atomic bomb was not dropped then if it was. Overall, the argument for the use of the atomic bomb was that they
weren't certain if a demonstration would have been enough to end the war, and they didn't even know if the bomb would function properly. Also, even though the use of the atomic bomb resulted in the deaths of innocent people, the death toll would have been even greater if the bomb wasn't dropped. Moreover, the effect the bombing had on the outcome of World War II was tremendously positive and negative. The positive viewpoint of this outcome is that the war ended along with the constant bloodshed of citizens. Unfortunately, the negative side was that it lead to the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. Also, many then looked at the United States in a different point of view in that they "had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages," and that the United States is the most powerful country (Artifact 3). To reiterate, the bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima, during WWIII, resulted in the destruction of 90 percent of the city. The use of the atomic bombs were known for the following things: the mass murder of a million innocent lives, and the end of World War II. After analyzing the sources provided, it is beyond dispute that the use for atomic bombs was equally argued for and against because on one side, many believe that a purely technical demonstration of the atomic bombs would have also caused the war to cease; while on the other side, countless viewed direct military use more efficient. Also, on one side, a million of innocent lives would have been spared, but on the other, the chance for more American and Japanese blood spilled. Overall, the arguments for and against the use of the atomic bombs are equally weighed.
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.
In discussion of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one controversial issue has the dropping of the atomic bombs being justified. On the other hand others believe that there were other ways of getting Japan to surrender and it was not justified, the only way we could get Japan to surrender was to invade them. Our strategy was to island hop until we got to Japan. Many more lives were at steak when doing that. Not only would just Americans would die, but a lot of the Japanese would have died as well, and the death toll would have much greater. 199,000 deaths came after the dropping of the atomic bombs. However, many American lives were saved, what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor, and the treatment of our American soldiers while
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
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.
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 ...
One of the most controversial decisions that have been made, in the history of the United States, was Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The ever so controversial topic of the dropping of the atomic bombs has successfully driven people insane. People feel strongly that this decision was atrocious and unnecessary, while others believe the polar opposite, that it was completely necessary. Some historians argue that the human cost to the Japanese population can never justify the use of such weapons. Other historians see it from an optimistic perspective, that it would not have been moral if atomic weapons had not been used to end the war as quickly as possible. President Harry S.
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.
The atomic bomb is the subject of much controversy. Since its first detonation in 1945, the entire world has heard the aftershocks of that blast. Issues concerning Nuclear Weapons sparked the Cold War. We also have the atomic bomb to thank for our relative peace in this time due to the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). 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.
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
On August 6th, 1945, the United States of America dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima in Japan. Two days later, a second bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. These two bombs were the most devastating weapons ever seen, and their effects on human beings and property were plainly horrifying. Approximately 110,000 people were killed; most of them were innocent civilians who just happened to have lived in the wrong place at the wrong time. Although using this weapon was an atrocity to both the Japanese, and humanity in general, the world was at war. No matter what ulterior motives may have existed, the fact remains that the bomb was a justifiably necessary measure to bring an early end to aggressive war that was instigated by Japan. Japan would never have surrendered unconditionally, as decreed in the Potsdam Ultimatum. Invasion of the Japanese home islands were out of the question because of the ferocious defense that would have been staged, and the huge number of casualties that it would entail. The bomb shocked the Japanese militarists into surrender and gave the “peace-party” the added credibility they required to bring about a quick end to the war. The use of the bomb also kept Russia out of the war, preventing problems that had occurred in post-war Germany, and later on in Korea. When all factors are taken into consideration, the use of the atomic bomb actually saved more lives, both Japanese and American than it took.
...e atomic bomb on Japan was extremely controversial it ultimately ended in America’s favor when Japan surrendered. According to Karl Compton, “it was not one atomic bomb, or two, which brought the surrender; it was the experience of what an atomic bomb will actually do to a community, plus the dread of many more, that was effective.” Hiroshima and Nagasaki will always serve as a reminder of the tremendous effects powerful weapons can have on a country. America consciously decided to seize Japanese lives in order to save American lives. The attack effected Japan in a massive amount of negative ways but the outcome of the atomic bomb did create positive effects for America. The devastation generated by the atomic bomb will never be forgotten by citizens worldwide. “The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a psychological weapon.” (Stimson)
Introduction The development and usage of the first atomic bombs has caused a change in the military, political, and public functionality of the world today. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki revolutionized warfare by killing large masses of civilian population with a single strike. The bombs’ effects from the blast, extreme heat, and radiation left an estimated 140,000 people dead. The bombs created a temporary resolution that led to another conflict.
The moral and military necessity of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has been a subject of debate for almost half a century. Most revisionists emphasize the victimization of Japan during the attacks. They often forget the military realities and the historical context while judging whether it was necessary for America to use nuclear weapons against the two Japanese cities. It is important to note that Japan was the aggressor. Japan triggered the war that led to the bombing of its two cities with its sneak attack on America’s Pearl harbour in 1941. Subsequent systematic and flagrant violation of several international agreements and norms through employment of chemical and biological warfare and mistreatment of prisoners of war and civilians aggravated the situation[ Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. (NY: Knopf, 1995), 89]. A response was needed to deal with increased aggression from Japan. Allied military planners had to choose between invading Japan and using the US atomic bombs in 1945[ Ronald Tabaki, Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. (Little, Brown, 1995), 101