The end of World War II in the Pacific ended abruptly with the death of hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens and soldiers as well as the complete destruction of Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The decision to drop these weapons of mass destruction have been largely debated and evaluated by many scholars, including J. Samuel Walker, the author of Prompt and Utter Destruction. According to Walker, Truman’s decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to defeat the Japanese quickly and limit American deaths, but was not completely necessary to end the War in the Pacific. The atomic bombs were justified thanks to the thousands of American lives they saved by bringing an end to World War II in the Pacific at the …show more content…
earliest possible time. The atomic bomb first began development under the Roosevelt administration as the Manhattan Project.
Slightly similar to what would become the race to the moon between the United States and the Soviet Union, the United States began the rapid development of an atomic bomb due to Roosevelt’s fears that Nazi Germany was on pace to develop such a bomb for themselves. After Germany was defeated and the lone foe being the Japanese in the Pacific, the clear target for the atomic bomb became Japan (Walker 14). Truman was first informed of this new weapon the day he was sworn in as President after having been left in the dark during his time as Vice President to Roosevelt (Walker 19). Although Truman had learned nothing of the atomic bomb while he served under Roosevelt, he had mastered Roosevelt’s philosophy of ending the war with Japan as quickly as possible while preserving as many American lives as he could. This philosophy would become one of the deciding factors in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Walker …show more content…
29). The decision by Truman to drop the atomic bomb was ultimately a relatively easy and vindicated decision. The United States had particularly limited options when it came to defeating a weak, yet resilient Japan. The prospect of losing thousands of American soldiers and sailors horrified Truman, and continuation of the war would have done just that. This possibility justified Truman’s use of the atomic bomb and limited the sacrifice of American life to a minimum (Walker 149-150). The atomic bomb gave Truman and the United States the power to defeat the Japanese without having to invade the mainland and suffer more American casualties than necessary (Walker 95-96). The alternatives to dropping the atomic bomb would have cost the United States more men and more time, and according to Walker, it is likely that any other American President would have made the same decision as Truman to defeat the Japanese and end the War in the Pacific (Walker 156). While saving the lives of American soldiers and sailors was the main priority of President Truman, ending the war of inevitable Japanese defeat as soon as possible was of high importance as well.
The ability to end the war at the earliest moment meant that the atomic bomb would be dropped on Japan nearly as soon as it was finished (Walker 29). When it was evident that the Japanese would be defeated, the main goal of the United States was to obtain victory on their terms and as quickly as possible. This ideology carried throughout Truman and his advisors, and is shown in a 1944 quote of General George Marshall stating, “War is the most terrible tragedy of the human race, and it should not be prolonged an hour longer than is absolutely necessary.” (Walker 63). The atomic bomb may not have been the only option for ending the war, but for Truman, the atomic bomb was the best available option to end of the war. The atomic bomb was the most logical option for Truman and carried the least amount of risks associated with it (Walker
80). Despite Truman having a reputation for being very indecisive as a decision maker, the atomic bomb was a clear decision for him given the circumstances (Walker 119). The United States had been burdened with war in the Pacific for greater than two years, and had suffered great casualties. Truman, like Roosevelt, wanted complete victory while sparing as many American lives as possible (Walker 12). Truman also believed in ending the war as soon as possible, and the atomic bomb offered an almost certain means of doing so (Walker 95). The prospect of a drawn-out war and the loss of more American life was more than enough to convince Truman that the atomic bomb was necessary (Walker 156). In Prompt and Utter Destruction, Walker makes the argument that the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified and necessary to complete Truman’s goals, but it was not the only option for defeating the Japanese. I can agree with this argument by Walker. The war in the Pacific theater was inevitably going to end with a Japanese defeat, it was just a matter of when. The atomic bomb saved thousands of American lives and ended the war at the soonest possible moment. Walker also argues that the United States would have defeated the Japanese without ever having to invade the mainland, and due to the state of Japan in August of 1945, I agree. The Japanese, at the time the atomic bombs were dropped, were weak and sick of war. A majority of Japanese leaders were contemplating how to surrender without facing major discipline, and were just late on coming to a decision. I agree with Walker’s interpretation that the use of the atomic bomb was necessary to end the war when it did, but that it was not vital in ensuring an American victory. The United States was going to come out victorious in the Pacific theater, and the atomic bomb essentially shortened the time to surrender and saved the lives of American soldiers and sailors. While I agree with Walker, I also agree with the United States’ decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States was dealing with an enemy with immense hatred towards Americans, and this resonated from their highest leaders throughout their citizens. Japan had attacked Americans on American soil at Pearl Harbor, had bombed and killed many citizens of China, and treated American prisoners of war abysmally. Had the United States decided against the atomic bomb, thousands of Americans may have died. Had the United States needed to invade the mainland to force a Japanese surrender, thousands more of Americans would have died, and the death toll of the Japanese would have most certainly exceeded the deaths of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States had limited options to defeating the Japanese, and the decision to drop the atomic bomb was the most logical decision for Americans and for human life. The atomic bomb was a war atrocity that I believe should never be used again during warfare, but was necessary to save the lives of American soldiers during World War II. The United States lost over 400,000 soldiers during World War II, many of whom were valiant young men that would have made up America’s future. The atomic bomb ended the war, the killing, and ended any opportunity for an imperial Japan. The atomic bomb also reinforced that the United States was the world’s most powerful country, and a victory in World War II allowed the economic and social ideology of the United States to have an impact on the rest of the world. The use of the atomic bomb in World War II was tragic, but ultimately was necessary in carrying out Truman’s goal of ending the war at the soonest possible moment and reducing American casualties to a minimum.
In Kirby Dick’s influential documentary “The Invisible War,” filmmaker Kirby Dick uses pathos, ethos and logos to gain information and supplementary details to make his point that there is an epidemic of rape in throughout the DOD (Department of Defense) and the fact that military sexual trauma (MST) in the United States military goes unheard, mostly unpunished and needs to be addressed at a higher level.
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...
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.
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.
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.
...ople and would fight to protect every inch of their homeland until there were no Japanese left. The logic of Truman and many Americans was to swiftly end the war while the means to do it were available, and this was one of the main driving forces behind the decision to drop the bomb.
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 attack at Pearl Harbor was the event that caused the U.S. to decide to be involved in the war. After this incident, the U.S. was trying to find a way to retaliate and counterattack against Japan. Some thought that the only way to do so was by using atomic bombs. People like, General Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S Truman, and a group of scientists believed that the use of the bomb would do good, and finally end everything. Eisenhower believed that because the use of the atomic bomb was successful in New Mexico, it would also be successful in Japan as well. Harry S Truman thought that even the atomic bomb was the most destructive weapon in the history of the world, it could be made the most useful. He stated that, “it was ...
When President Truman authorized the use of two nuclear weapons in 1945 against the Japanese in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, the nature of international security was changed irreversibly. At that time, the United States had what was said to have a monopoly of atomic bombs. Soon thereafter, the Soviet Union began working on atomic weaponry. In 1949, it had already detonated it first atomic bomb and tensions began to heat up between the two countries. With the information that the Soviets had tested their first bomb, the United States began work on more powerful weapons1, and a fight for nuclear superiority had begun.
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 ...
...it was without doubt a savior of lives, it seems most reasonable to conclude that we simply can not tell. Furthermore, Truman became President only weeks before making his monumental decision, he seems to have dropped the bomb simply because he never considered not dropping the bomb47. Together with his advisors, Truman never thought to rethink the basic principles established under the Manhattan Project’s inception under Roosevelt, and therefore, dropped the bomb because they believed in their heart it was the right thing to do, and never reconsidered. There is no way we can know for certain whether the approach of seeking alternatives would have ended the Pacific was sooner, and with fewer lives. But one may regret that such an attempt was not made. Had the attempt failed, the continuing blockade of supplies, Soviet invasion, and the atomic bombs were still available. However, anyone tempted to use the atomic bomb would have done well to share the hesitancy agreed upon Truman and President Roosevelt. Dwight Eisenhower was right, when he commented on the atomic bombings on Japan -- “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63, pg. 108).
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