The Atomic Bomb Helpful or Harmful
There used to be a time in America when the name “Atomic Bomb”
seemed fictional to some, non existent to others,and seemed only a dream to those in the science world. That time is long gone.The day that changed all ideas and opinions about what war was and what is has evolved to be was August 6,1945. President Truman had decided to drop the Atomic bomb in order to end the war and save as many lives as possible. The United States had dropped the bomb on Hiroshima in order to end the war almost instantly and avoid bloody invasion, thereby saving both American and Japanese lives. Whether or not to drop the atomic bomb was president Truman’s decision, faced with this decision Truman researched and asked advisors to share their ideas about the bomb and then made the best decision for the American and Japanese people. “ In an invasion of Japan,the fighting would have been more savage, and the number of lives lost on both sides would of been tragic.”(O’Neal 35) The Atomic bomb was essential in helping to put and end to the war and saving lives.
The decision to drop the atomic bomb was made by President Truman . In his decision he states, “ The only thing that was the right thing to do for the American and Japanese people was to end the war through the use of the atomic bomb.” ( O’Neal 36) Why all the controversy over the bomb? Historians and people today continue to ask this question along with others. Were the Japanese seriously considering surrendering before the bomb was let off, and was the only way the war could of been ended ended was throughout the bomb? The atomic bomb saved lives on both sides and served it’s purpose of helping to end the war. The facts remain the Atomic Bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima killed many civilians, but if the war continued to go on it would of killed many more.
When President Truman walked in to the White House he had problems and decisions lying ahead of him that he knew little about.In his first few days of briefing from advisors and committee he had said,”I have to decide Japanese strategy-shall we invade Japan proper or shall we bomb and blockade? That is my hardest decision to date .but I’ll make it when I have all the facts. “(Takaki 26) As you can see Truman had no intention of making uneducated decisions and he was by no means in a rush to bo...
... middle of paper ...
...tomic bomb was being assembled at the time and it was to be let off on Tokyo, that bomb was never used. The 500,000 lives that were saved in bombing Hiroshima compared to the 100,000 that died in the bombing shows that Truman did in fact make the best decision when lives were at stake.
Bibliography:
Alperovitz, Gar. The Use of the Atomic Bomb. Chicago : D.C. Heath and Company, 1974.
Blow, Michael. The History of the Atomic Bomb. New York ,New York:American Heritage Publishing and Company Inc., 1968.
Feis, Herbert. The Atomic Bomb and the end of World War II. Chicago: Princeston University Press, 1866.
Kurzman, Dan. Day of the Bomb. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1986.
Nardo, Don. Modern Japan. California: Lucent Books, 1995.
O’Neal, Michael. President Truman and the Atomic Bomb. San Diego,California Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1990.
Takaki, Ronald. Hiroshima. Canada: Little Brown and Company Limited, 1995.
Wheeler, Keith. World WarII Time Life Books. Virginia: Time Life Books Inc., 1983.
Wyden, Peter. Day One Before Hiroshima and After. New York: Simon and Schustler, 1984.
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.
Miles, Rufus E. Jr. “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved.” International Security (1985): 121-140.
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.
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.
Imagine a society where everyone has a different opinion about dropping an atomic bomb to country that they are fighting with. What is an atomic bomb? An atomic bomb is a bomb which derives its destructive power from the rapid release of nuclear energy by fission of heavy atomic nuclei, causing damage through heat, blast, and radioactivity. The atomic bomb is a tremendously questionable topic. Nonetheless, these literary selections give comprehension on the decision about dropping the atomic bomb for military purposes. For example, the “Speech to the Association of Los Alamos Scientists” by Robert Oppenheimer, argues that we should have drop the atomic bomb, “A Petition to the President of the United States” by 70 scientists, asks President
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
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.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), a British philosopher, is one of history's most respectable moral philosophers. Mill's most well-known work on the rights and freedom of an individual is his book entitled On Liberty. On Liberty discusses the struggle between liberty and authority between society and government, and how the limits of power can be practiced by society over an individual. Mill's essay consists of arguing what laws government has that ables them to be given the right to force people to act and live in certain ways. He establishes a society that can interfere with the government, demand freedom of individuals, and allow individuals free will to do what they choose, without interfering with the rights of others. This idea of free will and liberty leads to Mill’s harm principle. On Liberty is the founding document of the harm principle. The harm principle is defined in Mill’s introduction to On Liberty:
In relation to social obligations and advancement of society, Mill writes advocating the expression of one’s opinion as the main driving force. Mill states, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in sile...
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.
...ave the freedm to make mistakes and have discussions and debates in a healthy setting where others can learn from each other, and be able to raise their voice without having to be worried by the idea of being bullied. He strongly believed in having the freedom to develop your own personality and having the strength to make choices. Mills is only able to see progress in society if we enter a world of culture, free conformity, and harm. We must be given the right to free expression, freedom and the right to liberty without the fear of threat or being silenced. It’s because of these justifications that mill believes that mankind would not be justified in silencing an individual just like that one inidivdual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Through these actions, we as humans will create the ultimate gaood for mankind.
On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This was an extremely controversial military strategy in the United States. Was the United States justified in the dropping of the atomic bomb? The U.S. feared the rise of communism and gave aid to any country against it. The U.S. also fought countries threatening the spread communism. One of these countries was Japan. We began a harsh and brutal war against Japan and against communism. This war was killing many soldiers and Japan was not backing down. President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb when things were getting worse. The decision to use the atomic bomb was a difficult one and many people wonder if it was the right choice.
In Chapter 2, Mill turns to the issue of whether people, either through their government or on their own, should be allowed to coerce or limit anyone else's expression of opinion. Mill emphatically says that such actions are illegitimate. Even if only one person held a particular opinion, mankind would not be justified in silencing him. Silencing these opinions, Mill says, is wrong because it robs "the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation." In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions.
All things considered, with the recent obsession with body images, media had added extra stress. Many people in today’s society use this media as external validity, when in actuality when they don’t get the results they desire it ends with a lower self-esteem and a lack of self- efficacy. These standards are unrealistic and todays generation is having a challenging time realizing that
...r people would recommend, and it should never be curtailed by social pressures. In summary, then, Mill emphasized that individual citizens are responsible for themselves, their thoughts and feelings, and their own tastes and pursuits, while society is properly concerned only with social interests. In particular, the state is justified in limiting or controlling the conduct of individuals only when doing so is the only way to prevent them from doing harm to others by violating their rights. Based on Mill’s view and where he drew the line between private and public is that the society should not endeavor to limit persons drinking for example, but rightly prosecutes individual for harming others while drunk. But if the conduct the person chose clearly results in the harm just to that one person, the government has no business in even trying to suppress that behavior.