More handpicked essays just for you.
Negative impacts of the atomic bomb
Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb leffler ihj bulletin
Truman decision to drop atomic bomb
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Negative impacts of the atomic bomb
In August of 1945, President Harry S. Truman would make and ultimately carry out a devastating bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. It has been stated that Truman’s decision to drop the bomb was purely military. An invasion of Japan in November of 1945 was said to cause between 500,000 and 1,000,000 allied casualties. Truman also believed that the “special bombs” would save Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President and the bomb would help to end the war soon as possible. Many critics have argued that Truman's decision was a exceedingly brutal act that brought negative long-term repurcussions to the United States. A new age of nuclear terror led to a dangerous arms race. Some insist that Japan was
The quicker the war ended, the less casualties Americans would suffer. Second, he sought to justify the money and effort that was put into the Manhattan Project. If he did not use the bomb, people would blame him for the lives lost towards the end of the war because he withheld such a powerful weapon. Third, using the bomb would impress the Soviets, make them more subordinate to American desires, and improve overall relations with them. Fourth, Truman realized he lacked reasons to avoid using the bomb. In the military, diplomatic, and political sense, the bomb was the best route. Morality would be the only issue, but these were not a major preventive. Lastly, Truman claimed the Japanese were like a beast and the only way to deal with them was to treat them like a beast. After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, hatred had been built up against the Japanese. This hate diminished any hesitation Truman may have experienced in his decision to drop the
Truman, Harry S. Bombing of Hiroshima. 9 Aug. 1945. Speech. Harry S. Truman was the president during the later stages of the war. This primary source was important to me because it shows the president’s view of how the bombers of World War II showed the growing strength of America’s armed forces.
The first reason on why Truman made the right decision was because the atomic bomb ultimately helped to prevent the deaths of American troops. There would have been over 100,000 losses during the first stage of the attack against Japan, leading to over one million casualties of just Americans during the defeat of Japan(Tucker 1). Although there is no way to confirm the amount of predicted deaths, any amount of American deaths would have been avoided with the use of the atomic bomb. Comparing a million predicted deaths of Americans to the 140,000 (±10,000) that were actually killed in the Hiroshima bomb(Faragher 4), the decision implementing the bomb was executed in the correct way.
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”.
Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, proved to be the best he could have made considering the position he and America were in and due to the fact that it prevented worse tragedies from occurring. The dropping of the atomic bomb had many positive effects. For one thing, the end of the war would not have been coming soon if Truman had not ordered the bombs to be dropped. The dropping of the bombs did cause tragedy and death, but not as bad as the death rate would have been if the bombs had not been dropped. It all boils down to this: if you were in President Harry S. Truman’s position, would you have let the world’s deadliest war prevail until there was no one left to
Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb changed the way Americans thought about war because of the traumatic after effects. Works Cited Clancey Patrick ed., p. 78. " HyperWar: USSBS:
A huge proponent to the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9 of 1945 was President Harry Truman. Although they value the ideas and contributions out in by the committee they choose, the president ultimately has the last say on war time decisions. It just so happens that President Truman wanted to drop the bomb. President Truman believed that Japan's leaders would not surrender to the terms outlined in Potsdam meeting. He saw it fit to drop the bombs and end all doubt.
After Truman decided to bomb Japan, they had to plan it out. They first had to decide where to release the bomb. They ended up choosing Hiroshima, Japan and Nagasaki, Japan as their two locations. Hiroshima was a significant military city in the war. It confined two army headquarters and was Japan’s communication center (World War 2 Atomic Bomb 1). Hiroshima was also a huge industrial city and had not been bombed before so it would let Japan see the wrath of the United States (Koeller 1). The planning and actual event of the bombing went great. On August 6, 1945 at 8:15 in the morning the bomb was dropped. The bomb that landed in Hiroshima was called the “Little Boy” (World War 2 Atomic Bomb 2). The bomb ended up killing about 170,000 people. 70,000 people died the first day and 100,000 people died in the next few months due to the radioactivity of the bomb and burns fro...
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 ...
Dropping the atomic bomb was a decision that no man would want to take on. Truman went with all the facts and his gut feeling. There was Great loss for Japan but even some of the Japanese soldiers were happy that the United States dropped the bomb. For it most likely saved their lives the emperor was willing to sacrifice everyone so he wouldn’t have to surrender. Whether you decide to agree with the bomb dropping or not it wasn’t about the bomb it was about ending the war. The atomic bomb is what ended the war quicker than any other options the United States had making it the best choice.
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...
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.
To what extent was Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
The dropping of the atomic bomb may be one of the most controversial topics in American history. Could there have been another way to end the war without obliterating two Japanese cities? Several historians have taken a side and stated their interpretation of the situation. There are numerous factors that can sway the argument either way depending upon how influential you determine those factors to be. Some main historians that debated this topic are Robert Maddox, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, and Gar Alperovitz. Each of these historians provides us with different insight, and a different answer to the question, was it necessary to drop the atomic bomb to end World War II?
In August, 1945, President Harry S. Truman made the order to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. After the initial bombing there were no objections, but now people are unsure of if there was another way that would have had less civilian casualties. I personally think that the atomic bombs were inevitable. While the bomb did cause many civilian deaths, it was necessary because they wouldn’t back down, they were committing countless atrocities, we would have lost millions of troops otherwise, and the bombs brought a quick and decisive end to WWII.