More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of the atomic bomb on japan
Effects of atomic bomb on japan
The effects of the atomic bomb on japan
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effects of the atomic bomb on japan
When it come to be publicly acknowledged that the United States government planned on using atomic bombs to fight the war against Japan, a group of scientists who had worked on the atomic bomb for many years, felt the need to protest the idea. Leo Szilard who was a head of the group of scientists came up with a petition for the president for his associated scientists to look over. In his petition he asked the President “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs” (Szilard, par. 1). Szilard’s thoughts mentioned in the petition sought the strength and persuasion needed to sway the President that the use of the atomic bomb was uncalled for because of the shortage of facts presented, their poor reasoning found in the writing, and the failure to communicate the significance that their arguments held in the decision. In the petition Leo Szilard uses pathos over and over to try and sway the President’s view of using an atomic bomb to fight against Japan. While the argument is persuasive, he used the advantage of the alre...
In today’s society, many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and stated that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb. The U.S. decided to develop the atomic bomb based on the fear they had for the safety of the nation. In August 1939 nuclear physicists sent manuscripts to Albert Einstein in fear the Germany might use the new knowledge of fission on the uranium nucleus as way to construct weapons.
The Revisionists and the orthodox views are different opinions on President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb. The revisionists believed that Truman’s decision was wrong and there could have been alternatives. They say that the Bomb was unnecessary and it was only used as a “diplomatic tool” and to show the power of th...
The bomb was not without its controversies and consequences, however. Before it was dropped, Leo Szilard, leading scientist in the development of the bomb, "opposed it with all [his] power" (Truman 68). His close contact with the destructive weapon caused him and others to argue against its use. It didn't take long after the end of the war for scholars to assess the atom bomb and its potential in future warfare. In the Yale Review, 1946, Bernard Brodie looked in depth at its future implications and influence on the security of all nations.
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.
The various decision making models on the decision to drop the bomb are, a rational actor model, organizational model, and a model of bureaucratic politics. President Truman used the rational actor model to make his decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “Rational actor theory treats the actions of governments and large organization as the acts of individuals”(Davidson and Lytle, 2010). Government leaders usually select the best option that will achieve the best result and at the lowest cost. Governments need to examine a set of goals, the evaluate the, then picks the goal with the highest payoff. “The appeal of this model lies in its predictive powers. Often enough, governments do not make clear why they act. On other occasions, they announce their goals but keep their strategies for achieving them secret”(Davidson and Lytle, 2010). Using standards of rational behavior help analysts put together leaps for the government’s unclear goals or actions. The model explains the progression of events that brought about the bomb’s development. First, several physicists saw that there was a possibility of nuclear fusion, Second, Roosevelt ordered speedup for the recovery period, Then, there were scientific breakthroughs that led to a higher certainty of success and lastly, the race with Germany and Japanese resistance in far east encouraged several scientists to push for success. “Although this outline of key decisions proceeds logically enough, there are troubling features to it, suggesting limits to the rational actor model”(Davidson and Lytle, 2010). Roosevelt is a rational actor model but there have been several committees and subgroups that were involved in the process. “Historians have offered contradictory answers ...
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 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
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 ...
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...
The United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the World War. There is a huge controversy whether or not we should’ve dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during World War II. All of these people have valid reasons to think the way they do. Some people think that the United States did the right thing by dropping the atomic bomb in Japan. Other people think that there were other ways that we could’ve showed Japan how much power the United States harbors. Personally, I think that we did the right thing by dropping the bomb, because for us America comes before other countries.
One of the largest social impacts of the atomic bomb is that the atomic bomb instills fear into people for nuclear explosion and war. Before the first atomic bomb was dropped, a typical war meant that the people feared for casualty, physical pain and lost of love ones. With the new age of atomic bomb, every coming war has a potential to become a nuclear war, and a nuclear war brings a new type of fear. This new fear is the fear for the end of the world and humankind.
On August 6, 1945 the United States of America dropped the first nuclear bomb, that of two bombs, on Japan. The name of the bomb they dropped on Hiroshima was called “little boy”, and the bomb which they dropped on Nagasaki was called “Fat Man.” This was a win to the United states at the time but they came to find out it was also a loss. The atomic bomb that was dropped in Hiroshima ended up killing 90,000-146,000 people. It’s quite sad because most the people in that city were civilians. Japan is also a very peaceful country. Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world; which means they do not have lots of murder scenes and robberies, unlike the United States of America
Much debate and controversy has been stirred in regard to the ethics and efficacy of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As such, numerous figures have come in with their own perspectives on the matter. Yet through Japanese Emperor Hirohito’s surrender speech, former Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s article in Harper’s magazine, and American historian and WWII vet Paul Fussell’s essay shared a similarity of perspective on the necessity of the atomic bomb. All three individuals were unanimously in favor or at least were not critical of the use of the atomic bomb. Though, there are striking differences that fundamentally shape the individual narratives. For Hirohito and Stimson’s respective pieces, they share commonality in the fact that these are the words of political figures who utilized similar arguments over the atomic bomb being effective in preventing further bloodshed as means to an end and galvanized their respective nations on the
In July of 1945 a group of scientists created a petition with hopes of stopping the President of the United States from executing the use an Atomic bomb on Japan to force their surrender in World War II. Although the petition was not successful at stopping the President from launching the bomb, it was successful in its delivery and the pure sensibility it was requesting. The petition to stop the atomic bomb was an outcry for peace and mercy upon the Japanese, for not only their future but the future of America.