CONTROVERSY IN THE DROP OF THE BOMB Introduction The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima which triggered incredible human suffering and brought about insightful allegations of the entire human race embodies one of the crucial events of the twentieth century. By scrutinizing the historical background and the incentives of the past leaders at the time, various individuals have established different viewpoints to evaluate whether the circumstances justified the decision to drop the atomic bomb. In this paper, I shall compare General Paul Tibbett's and Yoshikawa's Kawamoto's perspectives and how they differ from each other. General Paul Tibbett was the pilot of the aircraft that dropped the bomb while Yoshikata Kawamoto was the school-age …show more content…
boy who lived in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. The individuals experience to discuss a significant moment in the shaping of the general affairs in the globe.
Kawamoto's experience represents a horrified child who survives the blast and loses most of his classmates; he is surrounded by horrified sceneries that have always lingered in his mind. The horrifying experiences trigger Kawamoto's concerns to the existence of nuclear weapons; he is worried worse events could happen in case of significant conflict. However, he is glad that Americans won the war since they lived under the military regime and they, therefore, required democracy, they, therefore, had to lose the war to achieve the liberty they needed. General Paul Tibbett perceives that the drop of the bomb was justified to putting the fight to complete closure and to saving the lives of individuals since no nation could stand against the power of the atom at that period. The use of the atomic bomb, however, has introduced a new era of warfare, the general argues that in case of significant conflict in the future, …show more content…
it could trigger the utilization of nuclear weapons. Paul Tibbet’s and Yoshikata perspectives differ from each other due to the different involvements the individuals were in, as a soldier, Paul Tibbett illustrates that the idea was to serve and preserve the integrity of his country. He explains that he not observe any aspects since there is no molarity in warfare. He believes that he brought peace to the world at that time. Yoshikata perspectives are based on the experiences he went through after the incident. He worries about the existence of the nuclear weapons which could cause devastating impacts in any other major conflict. The fact that kawamoto was a student at Hiroshima prefectural first middle school had to attend school normally by train from Ono which is a fishing village that was 30km from Hiroshima. They lived under a military reign and therefore performed various drills they had been conscripted by the military to clear the firebreaks in Hiroshima in case fires spread after bombing raids. Hiroshima was however not untouched like Tokyo and Osaka. Being a soldier serving his country Paul Tibbett was performing a duty mandated by his country to perform. The United States chose the city Hiroshima probably due to its huge population and wanted to make a huge impact that would suppress the Japanese military and end the war immediately (Hamby, 2010) Being a military General in aviation, Paul Tibbett was appointed as the commander of the 509th composite group which was a group unit in the military’s army force and was created during the WW2 (Tibbett, 1989).
It was assigned with the operational deployment of nuclear weapons, which would conduct the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Paul Tibbett’s role was therefore to oversee that the bombing was successful. On the other hand, Kawamoto was a school teenager who followed military rules, during the military reign in Japan, the teenagers were used to help in social work. Their role was to follow the emperor’s rules, they bowed to the emperor’s pictorial image which reminded them of their
obligations. The historical versions of Hiroshima bombing in 1945 confirms and challenges the perspectives given by kawamoto and Tibbett. Various scholars have had various perspectives on Hiroshima bombing, Bob Edwards (2005) argues that the bombing of the atomic bomb triggered the start of the cold war instead of completely ending the war, this perspective contrasts Paul Tibbet’s perspective which he stated that the drop of the bomb was meant to end the war completely. Edwards illustrates that the bombing was done to impress the Soviet Union rather than to scare the Japans, he argues that it was a political based action that motivated President Truman to limit soviet’s expansion in Asia. The reasons for choosing Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kokura and Niigata cities according to Paul Tibbet was because the regions had not been bombed earlier. Cities like Tokyo had received previous bomb damages and it would be hard to identify the devastating effect of an atomic bomb which was being used for the first time. In an article depicting the eyewitness story on surviving the atomic bomb, kawamoto’s perceptions can be confirmed with the experiences the survivors went through. Kawamoto claimed that the atmosphere’s temperatures were terribly high and caused a scorch feeling on his body, he was tired and could not talk. The article confirms this by describing how the individuals had burnt patterns on their skin. The environment horrific setting given by Kawamoto is also confirmed in this article where the victim sees horrific views of individuals trying to recover from their dreadful injuries and some he describes as “walking ghosts”. Kawamoto also views that the Americans winning the war offered them the independence they were longing for. This is confirmed in an article documented by Herman Wong (2015). The same article confirms Paul Tibbet’s argument on the reasons of dropping the bomb, it confirms that the bomb saved lives by ending the war rapidly and without a land invasion which had made a devastating effect in the American army. The land invasion would cost the lives of more than 250000 casualties in the army since in the first thirty days, the U.S army had suffered more than 30000 casualties in the first week of the invasion. References Edwards, B. (2005). Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7706-hiroshima-bomb-may-have-carried-hidden-agenda/ Hamby, A. L. (2010, August 05). The decision to use the atomic bomb. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trumans-decision-to-use-the-bomb-712569 Surviving the atomic attack on Hiroshima, 1945,”eyewitness to history, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com(2001). Tibbets, P. W., Ryan, T., St, J. C., St, J. C., Kramer, D., Fisher, K., & Olentangy Productions, Inc. (1989). General Paul Tibbets: Reflections on Hiroshima. Reynoldsburg, Ohio: Buckeye Aviation Book Co. Taylor, A. (2016, May 20). Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/10/in-japan-and-america-more-and-more-people-think-hiroshima-bombing-was-wrong/?utm_term=.762249130066 Wong, H. (2015, August 06). How the Hiroshima bombing is taught around the world. Retrieved March 22, 2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/08/06/how-the-hiroshima-bombing-is-taught-around-the-world/?utm_term=.39ce980dba67
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...
To fully examine the factors that led to the United States dropping an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, one can look at the event as a result of two major decisions. The first decision concerned the use of newly developed nuclear weapons in lieu of other military techniques to secure a timely Japanese surrender. The second decision was to use several of these weapons instead of only one. Although the Truman administration displayed little hesitation or ambivalence over the decision to use atomic weapons (Walker, 51), it is important to examine what factors contributed to these swift actions. It was believed that dropping an atomic bomb on Nagasaki would resolve a number of problems in a simpler fashion than prolonging the conventional warfare until Japan finally ceded defeat.
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.
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 official reason given for dropping the bomb was to bring a quick end to tht war and save American lives. However, Takaki presents many different explanations as to why the decision to use the bomb was made. He disagrees with the popular belief that the decision to use the bomb was made solely to quickly end the war in the Pacific and to save American lives. Takaki presents theories such as international concerns, American sentiment, and racism in an attempt to more fully explain why this decision was made.
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
...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.
One of, if not the most influential part, of allowing the bombs to drop is because of the mentality of the Japanese military and the pull they had in politics. As Maddox stated, “[t]he army, not the Foreign Office controlled the situation” (Maddox, pg. 286). Although Japan had an influential leader in regards to their emperor, the military wanted to and would have engag...
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 ...
At that time, the schedule was delayed for fifteen minutes. Bockscar carried the atomic bomb, which was Fat Man. The top target was Kokura, and Nagasaki was the second target for dropping the atomic bomb. The captain who operated Bockscar had orbited for forty-five minutes around Yakushima. Then he decided to go to Kokura.
Donohue, Nathan. "Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." CSIS.org. CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies, 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 07 Jan. 2014.
“Little Boy” and “Fat Man”, the world’s first two nuclear bombs were dropped in two major cities in Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the 6th and 9th of August 1945. This “experiment” by the United States Government completely demolished the two cities, killing over 150,000 people instantly and nearly 50,000 people died from aftermath as well as radiation.
"Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Justifiable?" The Pacific War 1941-43. Web. 10 June 2010.
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.