Over the years, many debates arose on whether or not the United States should have launched the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. America’s entry into WWII in December 1941 was due to Japan’s unexpected bombing of Pearl Harbor. Four years later, nearing the end of war, the development of the atomic bombs and the proposed use of them were presented. President Harry Truman supported this as he and top officials saw it as a necessity to end WWII as Japan’s refusal to surrender led to the bold decision to drop the bombs to prevent further American casualties. However, others like William E. Leahy, Chief of Staff for Truman, thought of it as a war crime, a genocide, as its use wiped out more than 200,000 civilians and it …show more content…
Opposed to this, in Document 2, Leahy’s perspective emphasizes how the atomic bomb is unethical and barbarous. Through these two approaches, they highlight key aspects of their morals about dropping hazardous materials during war. In Document 1- Harry S. Truman on the Bombing of Hiroshima 1945, Truman shares that his intention for the atomic bombs was that it was only to be used as a weapon. As Truman states: “I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used” (2). This reflects Truman’s perspective that he’s only seen it as a tool to end war, prioritizing it over ethical morals. In addition to this, Truman also states: “In deciding to use this bomb I wanted to make sure that it would be used as a weapon of war in the manner prescribed by the laws of war. That meant that I wanted it dropped as nearly as possible upon a war production center of prime military importance” (4). This also shows that Truman only saw the bomb as a tool to end war, but he also justifies that his intended use is within international …show more content…
As in Document 1, Truman states: “I had realized, of course, that an atomic bomb explosion would inflict damage and casualties beyond imagination” (2). This shows Truman’s awareness of the dangers posed by the atomic bombs. And in relation, in Document 2, Leahy states: “The dropping of atomic bombs, devastating entire cities and inflicting untold suffering on innocent civilians..” (2). This further proves that an atomic bomb is heavily dangerous, but the difference is Truman processes the drop of the atomic bomb, while Leahy stays to his perspective of the atomic bomb being unnecessary. In Document 1, Truman states: “In deciding to use this bomb I wanted to make sure that it would be used as a weapon of war in the manner prescribed by the laws of war” (4). This shows that Truman approves of the use of the atomic bomb. Opposed to this, Leahy states: “Resorting to the use of atomic bombs, with their catastrophic effects, was not only unnecessary but also morally indefensible” (4). This shows Leahy’s strong opposition to the use of the atomic bomb. In conclusion, there are similarities and differences between the two, with one focused on winning and the other more on
While Truman had his reasons for using the bomb, there were people who agreed with him were the orthodox historians while the people who disagreed called revisionists. Truman had thought through the possibilities and had decided that using the bomb would be the most effective and quickest tactic. As a president, Truman had a responsibility to protect his country, citizens, and foreign affairs, so deciding on the best method to establish everybody’s needs was difficult. There were many things to worry about: fighting in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, bombing Japan, and building the bomb. His decision was mainly based on how the US citizens felt and the actions of Japan.
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.
This investigation assesses President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will determine whether or not his decision was justified. This investigation will scrutinize the reasons that made Harry Truman feel inclined to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Preventing further casualties along with the desire to end the war are two argumentative points that will be analyzed to determine if they were strong enough to justify the dropping of the atomic bombs. Excerpts from Truman’s memoirs and a variety of different titles were consulted in order to undertake this investigation. Section C will evaluate two sources for their origins purposes values and limitations. The first is a book titled The Invasion of Japan written by John Stakes in 1955. And the second is a book titled Prompt & Utter Destruction written by J. Samuel Walker.
Samuel Walker explores both perspective of the decision by Harry Truman to use the Atomic bomb on Japan. Walker provides the evolution of argument and its development through the decade with the release of classified material. Using collected evidence from various sources, Walker seeks to establish a middle ground for the use of atomic weapons on Japan. Doing so, Walker allows the reader to fully understand the circumstances and decisions that Truman was placed in. By understanding the different options that Truman was presented with, Walker goes on to evaluate the likely consequences of such actions and what he viewed as the most effective method. This source helps shed a more neutral perspective in a topic that is highly polarized to allow for a comprehensive evaluation of Truman’s decision to use the weapon on Japan.
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...
President Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, during the Second World War is the most controversial decision in history. While it was an undoubtedly difficult decision, it was indeed necessary in order to end this six-year war that had ravaged the world. While many critics argue that the bomb was used primarily as an act of vengeance toward Japan, simplifying such a crucial moment in human history downplays the very real risk invading Japan posed to the United States. While avoiding strained relations with the other Allied countries, Truman had to assess the possible danger of the Soviet Union in a post-war world. Furthermore, the possibility of an arms race, the moral implications of using this weapon, and the number of American lives that would possibly be lost invading Japan were among the numerous pros and cons Truman had to consider when contemplating the use of this powerful weapon never before unleashed on humanity.
O'Neal, Michael. President Truman and the Atomic Bomb: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press, 1990. Print.
Throughout history, there have been countless wars between different groups of people because of race, religion, economic basis, and endless other reasons. More often than not the party that initiated the war was not justified in doing so based on Douglas Lackey’s “just war theory”. One action initiated by the United States that has been furiously debated since the decision was made is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and later Nagasaki. While some argue that President Harry S. Truman was wrong in making the decision that he did, I will be arguing that he was correct in deciding to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima because there is clear evidence that shows his actions were justified with both statistical proof as well as that the choice coincides with the criteria for “just war theory”.
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.
To choose whether or not it was morally sound to use the atomic bomb, we must first examine the background as to what circumstances it was dropped under. In 1945, American soldiers and civilians were weary from four years of war, yet the Japanese military was refusing to give up their fight. American forces occupied Okinawa and Iwo Jima and intensely fire bombed Japanese cities. But Japan had an army of 2 million strong stationed in the home islands guarding against Allied invasion. After the completion of the Manhattan Project, For Truman, the choice whether or not to use the atomic bomb was the most difficult decision of his life. First, an Allied demand for an immediate unconditional surrender was made to the leadership in Japan. Although the demand stated that refusal would result in total destruction, no mention of any new weapons of mass destruction was made. The Japanese military commander Hideki Tojo rejected the request for unconditional s...
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.
The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan were ethical decisions made by President Harry Truman and the United States government. By the time of the atom bomb was ready, the U.S. had been engaged in military conflict for over four years and lost over 400,000 soldiers. Truman claimed, "We would have the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved" (Winkler 18). The bomb was aimed at ending the war immediately and avoiding prolonged battle in the Pacific Theater and the inevitable invasion of Japan. President Truman hoped that by showing the Japanese the devastating weapon the U.S. possessed, that the war could be brought ...
There are many people who oppose the use of the atomic bombs; though there are some that believe it was a necessity in ending the war. President Truman realized the tragic significance of the atomic bomb and made his decision to use it to shorten the agony of young Americans (“Was the Atomic Bombing”). The president knew of the way the Japanese fought. They fought to the death and they were brutal to prisoners of war. They used woman and children as soldiers to surprise bomb the enemy. They made lethal weapons and were taught to sacr...
On August 6, 1945, the first bomb was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Three days later on August 9, the second bomb hit Nagasaki. Whether the United States made a moral and ethical decision is still an ongoing debate. President Truman was faced with a difficult choice. The U.S. chose to adopt a stance that seemed to limit the amount of casualties in the war, by significantly shortening it with the use of atomic weapons. It was certainly a reasonable view for the USA to take, since they had suffered the loss of more than thousands of lives, both military and civilian. To the top rank of the US military the death toll was worth it to prevent the “many thousands of American troops that would have been killed in invading Japan.” This was a grave
On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb used in warfare against the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later on August 9th, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. Just six days after the second atomic explosion, Japan announced its unconditional surrender to the United States after almost four years of war. Philosophers have argued that President Truman took a utilitarian point of morals when deciding to use nuclear weapons: do what is best for the largest number of people. Others say he blatantly ignored Kant’s teachings regarding the morality of attacking non-combatants. Regardless, President Truman was faced with one of the most morally difficult decisions any