In May of 1945, with Germany’s surrender, the Allied forces achieved victory in Europe. However, World War II was not over, and fighting continued against the Japanese in the Pacific. To finally end the war, United States president at the time, Harry Truman, made the decision to drop the newly invented Atomic Bomb on two navel bases in Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although this did lead to the end of the Second World War, President Truman’s decision has faced much controversy in subsequent years, mainly surrounding the morality of his actions. I believe that given the Japanese mindset and the fundamental nature of war, that the dropping of the atomic bomb was justified. For one, a huge part of Japanese society was based upon orderliness, self-sacrifice, discipline, and the warrior spirit. During World War II, these ideals, known as gaman, drove and empowered the Japanese military. However, this also caused them to adopt the mindset to never surrender or give up. As stated in the article Dropping the Bomb, “The only surrender acceptable to American leaders would be unconditional. The only surrender acceptable to the Japanese would include that they be allowed to keep their emperor.” Before dropping the atomic bomb, had the two countries attempted to agree upon surrender terms it would have been virtually impossible to reach an equally pleasing consensus. Also relayed in the article was that without the dropping of the atomic weapon, new evidence suggests the war would have continued for many more months. Despite the complete inability for the Japanese to make war, they would have kept fighting because of their belief in gaman. According to Sandra Nees, a foreign woman who spent time living in Japan, “This [gaman] is the psycho... ... middle of paper ... ...kelihood of the world engaging in atomic warfare slim to none because it would result in huge loss and destruction on both sides. Perhaps the world had to see the horrific effects of an atomic weapon in order to not use them again. In short, the Atomic Bombs killed thousands of people in Japan but it possibly saved many more and its ruthlessness was justified as simply another weapon to win a war. The final decision made by President Harry Truman to drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to the end of the war less than a month later. While it is still a heavily scrutinized choice to this day, I fully and completely believe that it was a justified act of war. The strong held beliefs held by others can only be changed through action, and it is ludicrous to try and find virtue and morals when surrounded by corruption, wickedness, and destruction.
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 on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, bombing Japan, and building the bomb. His decision was mainly based on how the US citizens felt and the following actions of japan. Japan refused to accept an unconditional surrender, which was demanded by the allied powers in order to stop the war against them. On August 6, 1945 Truman allowed Enola Gay to drop the atomic bomb on top of Hiroshima and later Nagasaki to end the war.
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...
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.
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
...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.
Historian Robert James Maddox starts the debate by siding with Truman and states that he made the right decision in dropping the bomb. Maddox uses several influential meetings, speculations and the presidents’ personal opinions on the situation to defend his statement. Some examples he uses include, Japanese military power and mentality, saving American lives, and unconditional surrender. In short, because the use of the atomic bomb occurred, the Japanese military lost their lust to fight to the end, countless lives were saved, and Japan surrendered. Therefore, although many Japanese lives were lost in the conflict the right decision was made by Harry Truman to authorize the usage of the bombs.
The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was completely justified in both cause and impact. An intense weapon was necessary to force a quick Japanese surrender. The bomb saved thousands upon thousands of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost if the war continued or an invasion occurred. The bomb was the only way to end the suffering of the millions who were being held captive by the Japanese oppressor. The weapon of mass destruction also sent a powerful message to the shaky Soviet allies. The choice to use the atomic bomb was justified because it compelled a Japanese surrender, saved countless lives, served as retribution for the sufferings of many people, and acted as an anti-Soviet deterrent.
If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.” (Truman).The justification of the bombs was the fact that the bomb was only in retaliation to a hostile nation and there refusal to cooperate with the American government. Japan was attacking with no fear they were unwavering because there military mind set was to never surrender because it was a sign of weakness it was against their nature. And so was the United States we were not going to give up though we were not gaining anything from this war only loosing we had the same sort of national mindset that we could to surrender for the fear of being preserved as week. So with the rejection of surrender the United States dropped the bomb in order to stop a more brutal war and to protect the United States from having to drop out of the
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...
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.
In August of 1945, both of the only two nuclear bombs ever used in warfare were dropped on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These two bombs shaped much of the world today.
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 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