Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
DECISION making task
Decision making
Decision making process in management
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Was Truman right to use the atomic bomb?
Imagine an atomic bomb falling into your city and in seconds there is no longer a city or place you used to call home. Would you think it was right for someone to drop an atomic bomb on you even if you were in the middle of a world war? It was not right for Truman to drop the bomb because he didn’t know the consequences of the atomic bomb and what damage it would do to the people and land. Truman could’ve easily invaded Japan instead of dropping the A-bomb.
Truman wasn’t right about dropping the A-bomb because he only found out about the bomb 12 days of him being in office(Interview Transcripts: The Bomb”.) The atomic bomb was only tested twice and each one of them had an untested design which means they weren’t really successful so they changed the design of the
…show more content…
The city of Hiroshima was completely destroyed and almost every building was in ashes or bricks because of a heat wave of 10,832 degrees fahrenheit whipping out everything in its path ways for 7-15 square miles. The country of Japan finally surrendered after 2 atomic bombs getting dropped on them, and two of their cities getting burned to ruins. If Truman would’ve invaded, he would have outnumbered the soldiers and the aircraft's, he would’ve been able to make Japan to surrender easily. Truman killed innocent people both in the Island hopping campaign and when he bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Operation Olympic would’ve been the greatest invasion force ever created, greater than the Eastern Front, greater than D-day.(Planning the Last Invasion)
Now imagine an Atomic bomb dropping on your city or country knowing all the stuff you know about the only 2 Atomic bombs ever dropped by Truman. You would
know that morally it is never ok to drop an Atomic bomb ever on a country, and Truman was definitely not justified to drop the Atomic bomb on
Was that they fully didn’t inform Stalin about the atomic bomb, until it was used. In British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden's Version, says Mr. Churchill and I had previously discussed together the problem of telling Stalin and, if so, whether before the explosion of the bomb or after. If we did tell him would he ask for the know-how at once? A refusal would be awkward, but inescapable. This showed that they didn’t have the intention to tell Stalin about the atomic bomb. In addition they decide the Truman would tell Stalin about the atomic bomb and said “On the question of when Stalin was to be told, it was agreed that President Truman should do this after the conclusion of one of our meetings. He did so on July 24th, so briefly that Mr. Churchill and I, who were covertly watching, had some doubts whether Stalin had taken it in. His response was a nod of the head and a brief "thank you." No comment.” This showed that since they didn’t inform Stalin before, he felt that he was not important in the case and left no comment, which made things easier and less
There are many opinions surrounding the question: Was the decision by Truman to drop the atomic bomb ultimately the right or wrong decision? Not only can this question be answered in many different ways, it can be interpreted in many different ways as well. Overall, Truman ultimately made the right decision to drop the atomic bomb. This can be supported by the fact that the atomic bomb helped prevent the deaths of American troops, saved the lives of foreign citizens, and in comparison the atomic bomb was not as destructive as the firebombing in Tokyo.
While Truman had his reasons for using the bomb, there were people who agreed with him were the orthodox historians while the people who disagreed called revisionists. 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 in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, bombing Japan, and building the bomb. His decision was mainly based on how the US citizens felt and the actions of Japan.
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...
... the Japanese were unpredictable. If Harry Truman had not dropped the bombs over Japan it would have only brought on further casualties.
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.
According to document A, President Truman believed that it was his duty to protect and save American lives And that's exactly what he did. If we did not go through with the atomic bomb, then we would have had to get Japan to surrender another way, yeah we could have put up an economic blockade and continuously bombed them like Admiral William Leahy wanted to do in in document A. Or we could have invaded and lost many more lives in the process, the war would have dragged on costing more American lives and more money for the United States.
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.
World War II played host to some of the most gruesome and largest mass killings in history. From the start of the war in 1939 until the end of the war in 1945 there were three mass killings, by three big countries on those who they thought were lesser peoples. The rape of Nanking, which was carried out by the Japanese, resulted in the deaths of 150,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians and POW. A more well-known event was of the Germans and the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazi regime persecuted and killed over 500,000 Jews. This last country may come as a surprise, but there is no way that someone could leave them out of the conversation. With the dropping of the Atomic bombs the United States killed over 200,000, not including deaths by radiation, in the towns of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ultimately placed the United States in the same group as the Japanese and the Germans. What are the alternatives other than dropping the two A-bombs and was it right? The United States and President Truman should have weighed their opting a little bit more before deciding to drop both atomic bombs on the Islands of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the case of dropping the atomic bombs the United States did not make the right decision. This essay will explain through logic reasoning and give detailed reasons as to why the United States did not make the right choice.
The Atomic Bomb Should Not Have Been DroppedAs President Obama signs new nuclear policy, we are reminded of the longand sordid history of nuclear policy in the United States. We have come a long waysince we decided to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.It is amazing that we continue debating this initial deployment of nuclear weaponrytoday. The US should not have decided to drop these atomic bombs. This decisionwas morally incorrect and unnecessary. Thousands of people died who did not needto die, and many more became sick from radiation poisoning. The bombs wiped twoentire cities off the map. How can anyone even argue for this in the first place?One argument that was used to support dropping the bomb was that theJapanese forfeited their rights when they aggressively attacked Pearl Harbor andcommitted war crimes against prisoners and the Chinese. However, this argument does not work for a few reasons. First, there are two types of justice in war. There isthe justice for going to war (
...ved to American soil, the use of the atomic bombs are justified. There probably is not a leader who would not go to any length to protect his or her country. Truman did what he believed he had to make his country move on and to end World War II.
There were many arguments and factors as to if Truman decided correctly and if the United States should have dropped the bombs. There were many disputes supporting the bombing. Some being the Japanese were warned early enough, it shortened the war, and it saved many Americans lives. There are also voluminous quarrels against the United States bombing the Japanese. Some of these are the bombing killed innocent Japanese civilians who did not deserve it, the Japanese was about to surrender before we bombed them, and the United States only blasted the Japanese because of racism toward them. Though there are many valid reasons for and against the bombing, there is still much controversy today whether president Truman made the right decision.
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