Pro: Drop Bomb on Japan The bombings of 1945 by the United States of America on Japan were very controversial events. Many historians believe these acts were aggressive and unnecessary. In addition, analysts argue that the U.S. should have used alternative methods instead of the bomb, but most do not realize the repercussions of these different tactics. On the contrary, the bomb was needed to ease tension quickly and effectively. Ultimately, the bomb proved more effective than any other method, and also proved to be a technique that is sufficient for America’s needs. The effort made by the U.S. to bomb Japan after their disapproval of the Potsdam Declaration was needed to end conflicts in the Pacific because of Japanese resistance, to save American lives, and to portray the U.S. as a nation of power and dominance. Japanese soldiers were trained in all types of conditions to prepare for war. People in Japan grew up with very nationalistic ideals. Many were passionate for their country and would sacrifice anything for their Emperor, even their own lives. This concept was reinforced during many Japanese soldier trainings. They were taught to never give up or surrender to the enemy. At this point, dropping the atomic bomb was needed to end the war in the Pacific, as it is the only way to defeat the Japanese. As the Japanese are very prideful in ethics, a war would occur on Japanese soil if it were not for the bomb. Japanese men would fight American troops, and ultimately, the Japanese would win the battle (The 1). The attacks on Pearl Harbor exemplify their dedication towards the war. Moreover, one can see the extent of nationalism through the negative effects of the Kamikaze pilots. They sacrificed their own lives for the better¬ o... ... middle of paper ... ... at War. Jackson: University of Mississippi, 1997. Print. Compton, Carl T. "If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used." The Atlantic Monthly 5 Aug. 2005: 54. Print. Donohue, Nathan. "Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Center for Strategic and International Studies. N.p., 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 4 Jan. 2014. Miller, Henry I. "The Nuking Of Japan Was A Tactical And Moral Imperative." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 01 Aug. 2012. Web. 4 Jan. 2014. "The Potsdam Conference, 1945." Milestones 1937–1945. The US Department of State Office of the Historian, n.d. Web. 28 Dec. 2013. Willbanks, James H. "Kamikazes: World War II." World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. Van Rhyn, Mark. "Bombing of Nagasaki: World War II." World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.
"World War II". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 05 Nov. 2013. .
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...
In Prompt and Utter Destruction, J. Samuel Walker provides the reader with an elaborate analysis of President Truman’s decision behind using the atomic bomb in Japan. He provokes the reader to answer the question for himself about whether the use of the bomb was necessary to end the war quickly and without the loss of many American lives. Walker offers historical and political evidence for and against the use of the weapon, making the reader think critically about the issue. He puts the average American into the shoes of the Commander and Chief of the United States of America and forces us to think about the difficulty of Truman’s decision.
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.
Although WW II ended over 50 years ago there is still much discussion as to the events which ended the War in the Pacific. The primary event which historians attribute to this end are the use of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although the bombing of these cities did force the Japanese to surrender, many people today ask “Was the use of the atomic bomb necessary to end the war?” and more importantly “Why was the decision to use the bomb made?” Ronald Takaki examines these questions in his book Hiroshima.
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
The benefits that the bomb had on our society have been invaluable. Permitting the use of the atomic bomb was an atrocious mistake.In John Hersey's book, Hiroshima, he interviews a German priest serving in Japan. This priest, Father Kleinsorge, provides a first hand account of the immorality, justification, and consequences thereof; “The crux of the matter is whether total war in its present form is justifiable even when it s...
Maddox, Robert. “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb.” Taking Sides: Clashing View in United States History. Ed. Larry Madaras & James SoRelle. 15th ed. New York, NY. 2012. 280-288.
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 ...
"World War II." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. William A. Darity, Jr. 2nd Ed. Vol. 9. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. 147-151. World History In Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.
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...
"Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Justifiable?" The Pacific War 1941-43. Web. 10 June 2010.
In August of 1944 the war in Europe was over and the face off between the United States and Japan had finally arrived. The United States had to choose between sending hundreds of thousands of US soldiers, to invade Japan killing and being killed by the hundreds of thousands, OR dropping a newly developed weapon called the atomic bomb on two cities in Japan which would result in tens of thousands of civilian lives with little cost to US servicemen. The only hope of ending the war quickly and honorably was to drop the bombs. Calls for surrender were ignored and the Japanese hierarchy, Okinawa and Iwo Jima had shown clearly what an invasion of Japan would be like. The decision was made, the bombs were dropped, the war was ended and both military and civilian lives were saved by both countries.