Albert Einstein "The Menace of Mass Destruction" Speech Essay

Have you ever questioned why and how the US government decided to drop those two nuclear bombs in Japan in the World War II? It is still a universal concern while many disapproval have made toward its humanity. In a book that I’ve read recently, from the point of view of an eyewitness, Yamaoka Michiko, the author of story “Eight hundred meters from the Hypocenter”, shows how humanity was exchanged with the ambition of a nation by reviving a heartbroken experience when she witnessed her hometown was destroyed by such a terrific violence in the war.

Physicist Nobel Prize winner, Albert Einstein delivered a speech called The Menace of Mass Destruction during the Second Annual Dinner of the Foreign Press Association on November 11, 1947. The speech was given to the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. The General Assembly of the United Nations is responsible for deliberating, making policies and representing the UN. The Security Council of the United Nations has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. On August 2, 1939, Einstein wrote a vital letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt stating his knowledge of a possible atomic bomb being developed by the German government with

Hydrogen bombs are an exceedingly controversial subject; they enable humans to act as a pseudo god, giving us the ability to destroy all life in a matter of hours. In May 1982 in St.John’s cathedral Kurt Vonnegut gave a unique speech on hydrogen bombs explaining America needs them to protect from fates worse than death. Instead of a traditional and delicate speech about the atrocities of hydrogen bombs Kurt breaks formal etiquette almost immediately with jokes, humor and lightheartedness. By analyzing the diction and syntax Kurt uses in his speech a reader can see how Kurt overcomes controversy, gains his audience’s respect through ethos, and persuades them with logos and pathos.

Mr. Tanimoto consciously repeated to himself “‘These are human beings’”(Hersey 1946), as he attempted to save paralyzed, dying men and women, in the book “Hiroshima” by John Hersey. This nonfiction book was published on August 31 1946, a year after the atomic bombing fell on Hiroshima, Japan. This publication was raw, uncensored, and truthful. John Hersey unapologetically revealed the gruesome damages done by the bombing, while also silencing those who believed that the atomic bomb was a justified attack. Hersey’s brilliant journalism and ability to write this story without bias, is why this book was selected. The author did not want those who died to be remembered as casualties, but as mothers, fathers and children. Hersey wrote this book about the the physical, and psychological impact this bomb had on both survivors and victims of the atomic bomb. There were many historical events that contributed to the cause and effect of the atomic attack; historical events such as industrialization, the trench wars, and militarism. This was not just a simple bomb, but a complex attack on humanity.

The book Bomb: The Race to Build–and Steal–the World’s Most Dangerous Weapon is a thrilling, fast-paced story that refines a great deal of history into interesting and understandable literature for practically any age reader. The author, Steve Sheinkin, writes to tell the story of the first atomic bomb, the people who made it possible, and those who challenged its progress. Any person who is interested in science, history, or would like an enjoyable, quick read could read Bomb and easily understand the basics behind the creation of the atomic bomb. Along with the science and mathematics of the atomic bomb, Sheinkin adds the suspense and intrigue from the viewpoints of espionage agents from the Soviet Union, Germany, Great Britain, and the

Human rights activist and Nobel Prize winning author, Elie Wiesel in his mind opening speech, “The Perils of Indifference,” brings to light the indifference had my the masses which allowed a long period of suffering on multiple occasions; which can only be described as “inhumane” and a “sin” (par. 13). He develops his message by illustrating the specific life changing events the author has gone through, such as when he was “Liberated a day earlier by American soldiers…” (par. 2) which makes him credible enough to speak confidently about the subject at hand. In addition, Wiesel also by using the line “When adults wage war, children perish.” he creates a shocking moment of realization and a heavier mood so people realize that being indifferent had great repercussions. Lastly, the author creates awareness to the gravity of not caring about major genocides happening worldwide. “[T]wo world wars, countless civil wars, [and] a senseless chain of assassinations…” (par. 5) are what he touched on and wanted to make a point of. Wiesel’s purpose is to inform government officials of their own indifference so it is prevented in the future in order to make better millenium where people aren’t heedless when relating to a crisis. He establishes a serious, somber, and enlightening tone for readers through the use of ethos, pathos, and the literary device asyndeton in order to develop his message that humans shouldn’t be indifferent towards others. Wiesel’s message about the inhumanity of

Thank God for the Atomic Bomb by Paul Fussel is a provocative essay about the opposing views on the two atomic bombs that America dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan ending World War 2, the most defecating event to happen in history. Over a few million-innocent people died that day, and thousands of the survivors and their offspring have suffered or died since of the result of the chemicals used in the bomb. Fussel was a purple hearted second lieutenant military man frontline in the war. He writes about the difference of opinion of using the atomic bomb from two views: those with firsthand combat with the Japanese and those without firsthand combat experience with the Japanese. Paul Fussel’s essay has the primary aim of persuading the reader that the Atomic bomb was the best choice as a means to end the war and he uses the primary mode of evaluation to persuade. His secondary aim is referential, to inform and explain to those who had no firsthand experience in that war and he uses the secondary mode of description to do this, citing from those against the bomb and those with their hands in the daily blood.

The crises to which this work responds was the total annihilation of Hiroshima and the aftershock experienced by those left

Inventions have been accomplished due to the vast technology that is in place. Technology has led to the advancement of warfare in most parts of the world. The same technology has resulted in inventions that range from gunpowder to the atom that is splitting the environments across the borders. These inventions have led to some countries being able to leap over other weaker countries when it comes to war. Among all these inventions, the atomic bomb stands out as the most lethal weapon. The splitting atom has launched the whole world through its conventional warfare that led the world to change their perspectives to ushering in a new era of the nuclear age. The world atomic bomb is so vivid to the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (Madaras 99). When one mentions these two places and the splitting atom, a person is able to picture a city that was torn apart and the masses of people that were killed by the United States ' actions of using the bomb in these two cities. Thus, this paper tries to examine if it was necessary for the United States to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to bring an end to World War II.

On the clear morning of August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan, the world was hit with a total shock, that went down in history as a day for the history books. This day, the city of Hiroshima was blasted by the world’s first atomic bomb, which sent the grounds quaking, and leaving thousands dead. The debates for years since the bombing were having us all wonder if the attack was a military necessity or not. Considering both sides of the argument, it is clear to me that the bombing was the best plan for ending the world war. The use of the bomb saved more lives than it took.

World War II played host to some of the most gruesome and largest mass killings in history. From the start of the war in 1939 until the end of the war in 1945 there were three mass killings, by three big countries on those who they thought were lesser peoples. The rape of Nanking, which was carried out by the Japanese, resulted in the deaths of 150,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians and POW. A more well-known event was of the Germans and the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazi regime persecuted and killed over 500,000 Jews. This last country may come as a surprise, but there is no way that someone could leave them out of the conversation. With the dropping of the Atomic bombs the United States killed over 200,000, not including deaths by

“Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President,” (ushistory.org 1). President Truman and the United States government made a fair decision by dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese citizens in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during 1945. The bomb allowed the United States to appear more powerful and led to them influencing the rest of the world. The dropping of the atomic bomb was also a just response to the previous atrocities committed by Japan to other countries including the United States. In the long run, the bomb saved more lives that would have been lost in the war, since the bombs caused the

Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.

Can you imagine yourself getting evaporated in a blink of an eye? I know no one wants to imagine that, but it might become reality soon if countries still keep possessing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, these weapons of mass eradication are an upcoming threat across the world because of its capacity for destruction which is why I chose to tell people my opinion on this matter. Additionally, I adopted this crisis as my essay topic because nuclear arms aren't just a domestic problem; it is a dilemma on a global scale. My aim today is to give you my two cents on why the prohibition of nuclear arsenals is the right thing to do! To stop this emergency, I will need all my readers help in protesting in peaceful ways against the arms because as Martin Luther once said: “Nothing good ever comes from violence.”

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)