Atomic Bomb Pros And Cons

While the dropping of atomic bomb is significant, many historians neglected to study political debates within the Japanese government and whether if the A-bomb was really necessary with alternative methods available. However, the gap between likely of ending the war with non-nuclear option and definite, was wide enough to suggest an alternative history- more deaths, destructions and longer war before Japan surrendered. But no one suggested that the reason of ending the war quicker constituted the ethical use of the A-bomb on Japan. The orthodox school historians suggested that the Atomic Bomb saved quarter of million American lives, while the revisionists argued that the Atomic Bomb was used to deter the USSR from spreading its influence. A third school synthesized the other two schools’ analysis and concluded that the bomb was conceived as a legitimate weapon to avoid the dread land invasion, punish Japan for Pearl Harbor, their treatment of POWS and intimidate USSR to

The Japanese could move allied POWS to the demonstration zone, killing them with essentially friendly fire. The second alternative, the modification of unconditional surrender to guarantee the imperial system was not pursued as an alternative; it was an addition to the blockade, heavy conventional bombing to produce a surrender. The third alternative was not feasible, as those who came to American diplomats to discuss surrender terms, were only middle-level diplomats with no real authority to represent Tokyo in brokering a peace treaty. The fourth alternative to delay the dropping of the A-bomb to allow Soviet entry was only going to be significant during an invasion. However, that invasion was avoided at all costs. The last alternative, heavy conventional bombing and naval blockade was not viewed as the decisive tool in producing a surrender. Rather plan was viewed as a supplement to the