​Throughout history there have been several radical events which have ultimately affected large

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only a few days apart from each other and before they dropped the atomic bombs on those two cities, airplanes flew by and dropped leaflets warning the people of Japan warning them to evacuate the cities. The leaflets warned the people of Japan that they have the most destructive weapon possessed by man and the only reason they are forced to use said bombs is because Japan’s military leaders will not surrender to the United States (“WGBH”). While people believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unjustified, the U.S. was right in bombing Japan to defend their country and to not cause any more allied casualties.

The reason that the atomic bomb was considered to be very effective was because it had the capability to wipe out an entire city, including troops, men, women, and children. Would an act of this capacity be considered as moral? Scholars dispute the morality of Truman’s decision, some arguing it was warranted by Japan’s aggression and refusal to surrender, and other scholars suggesting that the assaults were the moral equivalent of the Nazi holocaust (109). I postulate that to annihilate an entire city of people in one fell swoop is something that neither man nor nation should be able to decide, even if they conceive the other party to be deserving of such a punishment in retribution for their actions.

1. Long after World War II and the use of the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a great debate remains. It seems that there are two main potential arguments as to why the bombs were detonated and whether or not they were even necessary to begin with. The first theory surrounds the notion of the national security interests of the United States. In this theory essentially, Truman’s actions had been defended and justified as necessary in order to quickly end the war with U.S. causalities kept to a minimum.

The bombs were considered a winning weapon and blocked out painful questions about the moral consequences of this technology. They refer to America’s actions against Hiroshima pushed them into moral inversion because of their avoidance of moral and historical responsibility. Lifton and Mitchell’s remarks suggest that atomic bombs not only kill instantaneously, but it also harbours deadly generational potentials. Whereas other weapons at the time did not possess such deadly power. Hence, the reality of radiation made it hard for Americans to continue to rationalize this

They came, unwarned. On the 7th of December 1941, the Japanese executed a full-fledged attack on Pearl Harbor. They mercilessly created havoc, with attacks that caused the sinking of eighteen American ships, as well as 170 aircrafts. The casualties were dreadful, with 1,177 of those lost lives had been of the crewmen. The very next day, President Roosevelt declared war on Japan, and thus the United States’ involvement of World War II. Americans of every state were absolutely enraged and bent on their will for vengeance against the Asian country. Within the shadows of galvanized America, Robert Oppenheimer had set his infamous Manhattan Project into action. This project was so disclosed that only a limited number of men truly knew of its purpose. The clandestine project held prior securities to the point in which famous scientists had to use codenames in order to visit Los Alamos, even wives were kept in the dark, and only key scientists could bring their wives along with them. (Source D) This project had been the discreet creation of the Atomic Bombs. Time and time again, this topic had never really dissipated, its controversial who, what and whys prompting generations to debate its palpable purpose. Was the aim really focused for the “good of all?” Was it for America’s self-preservation and wish to promptly put an end to all of the suffering? Many Americans to this day still believe and argue for the usefulness of the atomic bombings, that the droppings were justified.

World War II lasted for six years from September,1 1939 to September 2, 1945 and resulted with Japan's surrender but believe it or not many events occurred both good and bad before anyone could make that choice. Before the declaration of this war japan had made an agreement with the U.S in which they gave them a friendship medal signifying peace. Turns out that wasn't the case japan actually backstabbed the U.S and on the morning of December 7th, 1941 the japanese attacked Pearl Harbor destroying nearly 20 American ships and more than 300 airplanes. About 2,403 sailors, soldiers and civilians were killed and about 1,000 people were wounded. After that the U.S could no longer trust Japan for many reasons they decided to fight back with two atomic bombs on Japan. The dropping of these two bombs on that country in my personal opinion is not justified. My reasons are that this was the first time the U.S was going to try these bombs out so in other words this was an experiment in which they had no clue the amount of damage that

Ralph A. Bard claims “...Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use” (Document 2). Japan did not deserve a warning prior to the descent of the atomic bombs. Japan did not warn the United States about the atrocious bombing of Pearl Harbour. Japan invaded America’s territory unexpectedly and caused nothing but destruction and loss. America bombing their territory unexpectedly is what they deserved. Since America did not give Japan a warning it is seen as un-humanitarian. Ralph A. Bard goes on to say that since the “...United States [is] a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people..is responsible in the main for this feeling” (Document 2). According to Ralph A. Bard he feels as though since America looks out and cares for their people that the humane thing to do would be to have provided a warning. America did look our for their people and they looked out for America in the long haul. By not providing a warning, America ended the war and saved many

After victory in Europe and defeating the Third Reich Nazis, World War II was not yet over. Japan was still a threat, their persistence and ability to fight really annoyed America. As a propaganda poster from World War II exclaimed, “Shall we let him get away with it,” (Document B). The United States needed to punish Japan for attacking American territories such Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, and Wake Island. Dropping the bombs would send a message

The pressing question still lingers: Was the United States justified in using the Atomic Bomb against Japan during WWII? World War II stands as the bloodiest and deadliest war of all time. It involved more than thirty countries and resulted in over fifty million civilian and military deaths. It lasted six years, beginning with Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939. As the Allied Powers (mainly the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union) and the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were in direct conflict with each other, many wonder if the cost of victory was too extreme. In late 1941, the process of creating the world’s first, most deadly weapon began. The production of the first atomic bomb was code named “the Manhattan Project.” After months of production, August 6, 1945, America dropped the “Little Boy” bomb on Hiroshima, wiping out ninety percent of the city. August 9, 1945, just three days after the devastation of the first bomb, America dropped the “Fat Man” bomb on Nagasaki. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was not necessary, nor justified in ending World War II. Due to the fact that America targeted heavily civilian populated cities (with limited military value), that Japan was in a position of surrender before the bomb was dropped, and the fact that the U.S. did not give enough time for Japan to process the devastation of the first bomb before the second in Nagasaki shows that America’s decision to drop the atomic bomb was entirely unjustified.

On the 6th and 9th of August, 1945, the United States of America dropped the Atomic Bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of these bombs brought a quick end to World War 2, yet caused extensive damage to the two Japanese cities. There have often been disputes as to whether the USA was justified in the dropping of the atomic bombs because of the damage they caused, not only to the cities, but to the people of Japan as well. Many people believe that the USA should not have dropped the bombs because of the damage they caused, and they also claim that Japan was already defeated. However, Japan did not surrender, and prolonging the war was not an option for America, as it believed it would cause even more casualties, not only to American troops, but to Japan as well. Thus the USA was justified in dropping the bombs on Japan.

As the war continued and violence escalated, bombings caused enormous destruction and high death tolls, leading inevitably to the use of the atomic bombs. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represented a culmination in the destructiveness of bombings, not a significant deviation from previous bombing practices. The alternatives to the use of the atomic bomb were likely to have caused equal suffering for the Japanese people. The use of the atomic bomb was no less moral than these horrific wartime practices. Harry Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan was justified by Japan’s refusal to immediately surrender. Harry Truman gave the Japanese time to surrender in order to preserve the existence of their people. They did not comply and as a result endured the consequences. (Walker) Yet an alternate perspective states that it was quite unnecessary to drop the Atomic Bombs in that Japan was practically an already defeated opponent. If a conditional surrender were to be issued by the United States to Japan in

One of the continuing debatable topics that is still being discussed is whether the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan in August 1945 was the right military action to do. There are many people who believe that there were other alternatives instead of dropping the bomb. Other people believe that the bomb was the only strategy that would work in order to end the war with the Japanese empire. Harry S. Truman found himself under the decision of whether to drop the bomb or hold back. Needless to say, whether Truman had held back from dropping the bomb or not, the war with the Japanese would have continued, causing more American casualties and more destruction. The dropping of the atomic bomb was a necessary action because it spared not just American

The issue focused on in this page is why i believe dropping the atomic bombs was not justified for the United States to have done. Such as how the United States could have tried harder for Japan to surrender, they did not want to let the Japanese keep their emperor. Which was like a God-like figure to the Japanese the U.S. should of just let them keep their emperor and Japan would have possibly surrender. Don’t you think that the United States could have picked other places to drop the bomb not in inhabited places with innocent people that had no part in the war. Perhaps the United States could have even explained the potential power of the bombs which could cause fear and also a method of convincing them to surrender.

Genocide was not new in WWII, nor was it an isolated incident, but the ease with which the Nazi’s were able to significantly reduce the Jewish population was only the beginning of a new era in warfare. Personal responsibility would take a back seat to nationality, patriotism, and advancing technology.

More than half a century has passed since the end of World War Two and to this day it is still difficult to fully understand the severity of what was by far the most destructive war in human history. More than sixty million people were killed during World War Two and more than half of those were innocent town’s people. Among the dead were over six million Jews, which was two thirds of the total living race in Europe at the time. Beyond these general statistics were thousands of stories of crimes committed against soldiers and civilians. These crimes against humanity included cases of prisoners of war being murdered, sent to concentration camps and abuse as well as harmless civilians being rounded up and