Two bombs. Two cities. Three days apart. World War 2, beginning September 1, 1939, was a crippling global conflict that tore humanity apart in a vortex of violence and destruction. It saw nations rise and fall, millions of lives lost, and indescribable suffering on a scale never before seen. The Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were fueled by greed, hatred, and a thirst for power. This clashed with the Allied Powers, (France, Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union) causing an epic struggle for the fate of the world. While May 8, 1945, marked the end of the war in Europe, it certainly didn't end the fighting between the two nations. The United States continued the war with Japan, and neither side was giving up. Both the …show more content…
By emphasizing the human cost of the atomic bombing, the statistic underscores the unjustified nature of Truman’s decision and the tragic consequences it had for the people of Japan. To summarize, Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan was unjustified because it annihilated the Japanese people. Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan was unjustified because it contradicted the values upheld by the United States. As pointed out in Document 3 by President Truman’s Chief of Staff, Paul Tibbets, states that the atomic bomb was a “barbarous weapon” and it was of “no material assistance” because the Japanese were already “defeated and ready to surrender”. This quote suggests that the use of such a destructive weapon was unnecessary and excessive. This relates to the idea that Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan was unjustified because it contradicted the values of the United States. The United States prides itself on upholding ideals such as democracy, human rights, and …show more content…
This excessive and unjustified use of force undermines the principles of justice, fairness, and humanity that the United States claims to uphold. Therefore, the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan can be seen as a violation of these values and a departure from the moral standards that should guide the actions of a democratic nation like the United States. In short, Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan was unjustified because it contradicted the values upheld by the United States. Some may argue that the alternative to dropping the atomic bombs would have been a prolonged and bloody invasion of Japan, which would have resulted in even higher casualties on both sides. By using the atomic bombs, Truman aimed to bring a swift end to the war and prevent further loss of life among American soldiers and Japanese civilians. However, many argue that diplomatic efforts and strategic alternatives could have been pursued to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict without resorting to the use of atomic weapons, By prioritizing the preservation of human life and adhering to ethical standards, alternative courses of action could have been explored to achieve a just and humane end to the
Truman was justified to drop the Atomic bombs because of the situation at hand, but it is arguable because he had several alternatives. Right after America declared war on Japan, Germany had also declared war on the United States. Thereby, causing a dilemma for the United States nation as a whole. If the US didn't finish the war with Japan quickly they would have trouble backing up the allied powers. However, Truman could have found another way to defeat Japan with a less violent tactic. 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.
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...
It was believed that dropping an atomic bomb on Nagasaki would resolve a number of problems in a simpler fashion than prolonging the conventional warfare until Japan finally ceded defeat. The primary goal of this extreme force was to bring a swift end to the war in the Pacific,(Walker) but a secondary goal was to display the military and technological might of the United States to allies and rivals around the world (Walker,). The use of multiple nuclear weapons made it clear to Japan and the world that Truman's threat of “utter destruction” was intended to be carried out unless Japan delivered what the United States wanted―unconditional surrender (Cite).
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.
To what extent was Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
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
...ar the use of weapons of this magnitude, the American idea of the Japanese people has changed, and we now have set up preventions in the hope of avoiding the use of nuclear weaponry. John Hersey provides a satisfactory description of the atomic bombing. Most writers take sides either for or against the atom bomb. Instead of taking a side, he challenges his readers to make their own opinions according to their personal meditations. On of the key questions we must ask ourselves is “Are actions intended to benefit the large majority, justified if it negatively impacts a minority?” The greatest atrocity our society could make is to make a mistake and not learn from it. It is important, as we progress as a society, to learn from our mistakes or suffer to watch as history repeats itself.
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 (
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 ...
In 1945, Germany had surrendered, but the war in the Pacific raged on. The allies were becoming desperate to end the war before it was necessary to carry out a full scale invasion. New developments in science had made it possible for the United States to weaponize the atom, and the consequent bomb created was dropped on Hiroshima and later Nagasaki at the approval of President Harry S. Truman and his advisors. In years to come, Truman would have to face questions over the merit of his actions. Although some may believe the atomic bomb was needed because it ended WWII, it was unnecessary to drop the nuclear bomb because of the alternatives that existed, the effect it had on the Japanese people, and because of the unethical reasons for dropping it.
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.
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