More handpicked essays just for you.
Justification for dropping the atomic bomb
Why was dropping the atomic bombs in World War II justified
Justification for dropping the atomic bomb
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justification for dropping the atomic bomb
Truman’s belief that the use of the bomb was the justification that the bomb should be used. His belief was that only through the use of the bomb would the resilient Japanese surrender.The japanese were hardy fighters and surrender was not one of their options win this war. In order for Japan to surrender the U.S. had to drop two bombs: the first one was deployed in Hiroshima and the second was used on the city of Nagasaki. The the counter-argument for truman’s actions were this: the bomb’s use was unnecessary because it killed massive amounts of civilians; the innocent in the war. The bomb used on Hiroshima killed around 50,000 people and eradicated the city instantly. The second bomb that was dropped at Nagasaki causing upwards of 40,000
casualties. Deaths were not only caused by the weapon itself; many of the lives lost in Japan were after the bombs wreaked havoc in the form or radiation poisoning. The bombs also decimated thousands of buildings and millions in infrastructure. Also many people were sure that when the USSR joined the fight against the Japanese, Japan would end up surrendering sooner due to a shortage of war supplies caused by being attacked on both sides.. I firmly believe Truman’s decision was the right one. In his decision to drop the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, he saved thousands of American lives, and maybe more. The war came to a close much more quickly with Japan’s swift surrender, allowing for American troops to come home safe sooner. Despite the lives Japan lost, Truman’s decision was the best for America and even greater for the world for delivering a decisive blow in WWII.
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.
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 quicker the war ended, the less casualties Americans would suffer. Second, he sought to justify the money and effort that was put into the Manhattan Project. If he did not use the bomb, people would blame him for the lives lost towards the end of the war because he withheld such a powerful weapon. Third, using the bomb would impress the Soviets, make them more subordinate to American desires, and improve overall relations with them. Fourth, Truman realized he lacked reasons to avoid using the bomb. In the military, diplomatic, and political sense, the bomb was the best route. Morality would be the only issue, but these were not a major preventive. Lastly, Truman claimed the Japanese were like a beast and the only way to deal with them was to treat them like a beast. After the attacks on Pearl Harbor, hatred had been built up against the Japanese. This hate diminished any hesitation Truman may have experienced in his decision to drop the
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.
The official reason given for dropping the bomb was to bring a quick end to tht war and save American lives. However, Takaki presents many different explanations as to why the decision to use the bomb was made. He disagrees with the popular belief that the decision to use the bomb was made solely to quickly end the war in the Pacific and to save American lives. Takaki presents theories such as international concerns, American sentiment, and racism in an attempt to more fully explain why this decision was made.
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.
The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was completely justified in both cause and impact. An intense weapon was necessary to force a quick Japanese surrender. The bomb saved thousands upon thousands of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost if the war continued or an invasion occurred. The bomb was the only way to end the suffering of the millions who were being held captive by the Japanese oppressor. The weapon of mass destruction also sent a powerful message to the shaky Soviet allies. The choice to use the atomic bomb was justified because it compelled a Japanese surrender, saved countless lives, served as retribution for the sufferings of many people, and acted as an anti-Soviet deterrent.
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...
President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the direct cause for the end of World War II in the Pacific. The United States felt it was necessary to drop the atomic bombs on these two cities or it would suffer more casualties. Not only could the lives of many soldiers have been taken, but possibly the lives of many innocent Americans. The United States will always try to avoid the loss of American civilians at all costs, even if that means taking lives of another countries innocent civilians.
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...
Both sides of the war had suffered tremendous losses and the numbers would have continued to grow over the course of the war. By choosing to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, I believe the lives saved in the long run outweigh the initial number of lives lost. There is no way to put a price of one human life against another, but the total number of deaths prevented could have been multitudes compared to the hundred thousand killed in the atomic blasts. From the numbers alone, I support President Truman’s utilitarian
...ecessary to end the war, because the Japanese were not going to surrender. 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.