Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Short note on hiroshima
Justification for atomic bomb use
Hiroshima brief essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Short note on hiroshima
Hiroshima and Nagasaki the untold story On August 6th 1945, the first Atomic Bomb, “Little Boy,” was dropped on Hiroshima, and three days later on August 9th 1945, the second atomic bomb, “Fat Man,” was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan’s industrial capital. The decision to use the Atomic Bomb against Japan was a poor one considering the damage, the devastation, and the amount of people left dead, injured, or suffering the loss of a family member or a friend, all for the sake of quickly ending the ongoing War. When the Japanese had realized that they were the only ones left in the war, Germany their ally, was already beaten out of the war and all efforts were now concentrated at them, the Japanese began suing for a peaceful end to the war. Apart …show more content…
The most common reason advocating the use of the atomic bomb is based on the argument that it saved American lives. Secretary of War Stimson states that the atomic bomb “…was going to be used because it would save hundreds of thousands of American lives” (Alperovitz 354). According to Lemay, “[I]f a nuclear weapon shortened the war by only a week, probably it saved more lives than were taken by that single glare of heat and radiation” (Alperovitz 334). Lemay maintains, “the atomic bomb probably saved three million Japanese lives and perhaps a million American casualties” (Alperovitz …show more content…
Close to half the population of the area that the bomb was dropped on was completely and totally wiped out. Not only did the atomic bomb kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but it also devastated an entire country. Due to the fact that the bomb was dropped on Japan’s two industrial cities, Japan went into a total economic and traditional decline. Japan’s economy was devastated, and due to the fact that the Americans had to step in and help the Japanese economy to build back up, most of the American values and traditions were incorporated into the Japanese culture. The Americans had good intentions when they decided to use the atomic bomb, they merely wanted to stop the bloodshed and did what they thought was possibly
...ights leader César Estrada Chávez attempted to make the growers and other fellow businessmen understand what the farm workers were going through. In it, he demanded equal rights and demanded that the masses of farm workers be free and treated as humans. The “Letter from Delano” had a remarkable impact on the tide of the table grape boycott, as Chávez’s words served to ignite the fires in the hearts of fellow farm workers and other Americans of unrelated ethnicities as well. These fires burnt for equal rights and freedom for all, and helped cement the strikes and table grape boycott as part of the Civil Rights Movement. Chávez used his dedication to militant nonviolence to achieve equal rights for his fellow farm workers, and helped ensure that they and their future generations would no longer be enslaved by the industry the letter’s receiver, Mr. Barr, represented.
Walker, J. Samuel. Prompt and Utter Destruction Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan, Revised Edition. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2005. Print.
The United States entered WW II immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The U.S. entry was a major turning point in the war because it brought the strongest industrial strength to the Allied side. The Americans helped the Allies to win the war in Europe with the surrender of Germany on May 7, 1945. However, the war in the Pacific continued. The war with Japan at this point consisted primarily of strategic bombings. America had recently completed an atomic bomb and was considering using this weapon of mass destruction for the first time. The goal was to force the “unconditional surrender” of the Japanese. Roosevelt had used the term “unconditional surrender” in a press conference in 1943 and it had since become a central war aim. Truman and his staff (still feeling bound by FDR’s words) demanded unconditional surrender from the Japanese. Consequently on July 26, 1945 Truman issued an ultimatum to Japan. This ultimatum stated that Japan must accept “unconditional surrender” or suffer “utter devastation of the Japanese Homeland”. This surrender included abdication of the throne by their emperor. Japan was not willing to surrender their dynasty and ignored the ultimatum. On August 6th and August 9th, atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively.
Prior and during the war, the Japanese were known for their citizens’ extreme loyalty and commitment to their nation, but after the dropping of the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some of these feelings diminished within the Japanese nation. Prior to the dropping of the atomic bomb, over 70% of people in Japan believed that their nation could come out on top in the war even after more than a decade of constant fighting and the Japanese being on the defensive for over three years since the Battle of Midway. Directly after the use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the percentage of Japanese people that believed that defeat was inevitable rose to over 50%. Many people in the two cities that were bombed by the United States were affected more so than the rest of the Japanese population. For example, a 25% increase in suicidal thoughts was reported in the two cities struck by America’s new deadly weapon.
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...
... Stimson, Churchill, Truman were all very aware of this. Declassified documents state that “the Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.’’ (Alperoviz) According to this scenario there would have been some casualties but no more than 5000.
Powers, Thomas. "THE BOMB : Hiroshima: Changing the Way We Think About War." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 06 Aug. 1995. Web. 10 Jan. 2014.
Admittedly, dropping the atomic bomb was a major factor in Japan's decision to accept the terms laid out at the Potsdam agreement otherwise known as unconditional surrender. The fact must be pointed out, however, that Japan had already been virtually defeated. (McInnis, 1945) Though the public did not know this, the allies, in fact, did. Through spies, they had learned that both Japan's foreign minister, Shigenori Togo and Emperor Hirohito both supported an end to the war (Grant, 1998). Even if they believed such reports to be false or inaccurate, the leaders of the United States also knew Japan's situation to be hopeless. Their casualties in defending the doomed island of Okinawa were a staggering 110,000 and the naval blockade which the allies had enforced whittled trade down to almost nothing. Japan was quickly on the path to destruction. (Grant, 1998). Of course, the Allies ignored this for the reason that dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would intimidate Russia. Had they truly been considering saving more lives and bringing a quick end to the war in Japan, they would have simply waited them out without the major loss of life seen at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A political problem that has been argued over since prohibition is the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). This is a controversial subject because many believe that the legal drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18 years old. “In the 1970’s the 26th amendment was passed which lowered the legal voting age, this caused 30 US states to lower their MLDA to 18, 19, or 20 which left 14 states with a MLDA of 21 by 1982” (Minimal Legal Drinking Age, 1). But reports later showed an increase in teenage car accidents in states with a lower MLDA; these states soon changed the MLDA back to 21.
There are many aspects to the drinking law that need to be taken into consideration, but at the end of the day, any law that is being disregarded and abused needs to be revised and corrected. America was built on change, and that same mentality needs to be applied to the growing problem that is the legal drinking age.
In fact, the state and federal laws for consuming alcohol are different. “The federal law requires states to prohibit purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages [for people under the age of 21]. Contrary to belief, it does not require prohibition of minors from drinking alcoholic beverages” (Minimum). This means that the severity of restrictions depend on what state you live in. For example, residents of Missouri have some of the most lax alcohol consumption laws in the country. It is one of six states that allow parents and guardians to provide alcohol to their children (Missouri). However, the lucky Kansans out there have it a little differently. Kansas’ law states that no one under the age of 21 can “possess, consume, obtain, purchase, or attempt to obtain or purchase alcoholic liquor” (Kansas).
Love, A. David. “The Racial Bias of the Us Death Penalty.” The Guardian: January 3, 2012.
The current drinking age in the United States of America is 21. There are some people who agree with the current drinking age even some who think it should be raised. On the other hand, a number of people feel that the current drinking age produces more problems than it prevents (“Cross Fire”). The United States has unsuccessfully tried prohibition legislation not once, but twice in the past. These laws were eventually done away with due to the inability to enforce and the repercussion towards them that ended up causing even more trials and tribulations (Engs). “Prohibition demonstrates beyond a doubt that drinking and the problems caused by drinking cannot simply be eliminated from the United States” (Olson). In the present day, the government is still reiterating the same mistakes that they made in past attempts (Engs). Research from the early 1980’s until present-day shows a decrease in per capita consumption instead, there has been an increase in other problems involving excessive and negligent drinking amongst college students after the twenty –one year old law in 1987 (Engs). The current drinking age of 21 is not effective and is causing other social problems. (Engs). This calls for us as a nation to change our existing drinking law.
The first establishment of a national drinking age actually started before prohibition. The temperance movement at the time used a minimum drinking age to gradually bring about the ban of alcohol all together. In 1919 the temperance movement got what they wanted and the 18th Amendment was created banning the sale of Alcohol in America. This ultimately failed resulting in increased gang violence and bootlegging. In 1933 due to a change of public opinion the ban was lifted with what is called the 21st Amendment. After prohibition what was left of the temperance movement made sure that a minimum drinking age remained. This made it illegal for anyone under 21 to buy liquor but in some states you could still buy beer at 18. This remained the case for the next forty years. In the early 70’s when baby boomers were dealing with the Vietnam war there was pressure to lower the drinking age, so many states (29 of them) lowered the LDA to either 18 or 19. The big argument was that if one could die in combat why couldn’t he have a drink. But, as the baby boomers aged there wasn’t as much support for these liberties so by the 80’s most states went back to 21. Then in 1984 the National Minimum Drinking Age Act passed which forced all states to adopt a drinking age of 21 within 2 years or face being cut federal funds for state highways.
The use of capital punishment greatly discourages any wrongdoers from committing any crime such as murder. Many people’s greatest fear is death; therefore if they know that death is a possible consequence for their actions, they are less likely to perform such actions. Ernest van den Haag, a professor and author of “Punishing Criminals:Concerning a Very Old and Painful Question” wrote about the issue of deterrence: “…capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts…the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence.”