Andrei Costin The Future is Now by Katherine Anne Porter What struck me so much about The Future is Now is the very premise of the essay. She starts with a description of how she was told to protect herself from a nuclear bomb, and the instructions she was given that were evidently ineffective. She contrasts what she is told with her own logic; a table won’t protect you from the bomb, it will only protect you if someone may be throwing bricks at your window. A major part of why this essay was so enjoyable is Porter’s word choice. Her language selection aides in conveying her story with vivid imagery, almost putting me in her place. Her descriptions are remarkable, using phrases such as “comic anticlimax” when a much simpler phrase would …show more content…
This works because she is comparing it to past advances in military technologies but claims it just increases the kill count. She uses examples of the silencer, the tank, the machine gun, and others to prove that these advances keep coming, only further increasing the kill count, and that we shouldn’t all go into a moralistic frenzy over the numbers of people killed in Hiroshima, because it isn’t the first time we have murdered innocent people and it won’t be the last, the only thing that changes is the number. “It is our own deaths we fear, and so let’s out with it and give up our find debauch of moralistic frenzy over Hiroshima.” This change in argument works because as fearful as this new technology is, there will be more fearful in the future, and other advances in the past garnered the same reaction from the population of its time. This new technology is horrendous and immoral, truly so, but we must not get taken aback by it, as more will come. Wars have never been moral, killing isn’t moral, technological advances in the field of the military are as moral as the rest. I think the final reason I found this essay so compelling was its relevance in today’s world. The topic of nuclear war is as prominent as ever in our society, yet to any of us who weren’t alive during the second world war to see the only instances of this weapon ever used, it seems so foreign. And to see such a passionate, rational, and objective view
"Everyone is aware of the difficult and menacing situation in which human society - shrunk into one community with a common fate - finds itself, but only a few acts accordingly. Most people go on living their everyday life: half frightened, half indifferent, they behold the ghostly tragicomedy this is being performed on the international stage before the eyes and ears of the world. But on that stage, on which the actors under the floodlights play their ordained parts, our fate of tomorrow, life or death of the nations, is being decided. It would be different if the problem were not one of things made by man himself, such as the atomic bomb and other means of mass destruction equally
The necessity of the atomic bombs have long been debated in America. Although they did contribute to stopping the war, Americans still wonder if murdering Japanese civilians was a necessary means to an end, or if it could have been avoided. Some people believe that the war would have ended without using the bombs. Others believe they were the sole purpose that the war finally ended. Many people were involved with bringing the bombs to fruition, such as the scientists, the government and military leaders, and the very teams that flew them to their targets. Then the President addressed the situation and American citizens spoke their minds. All of these people had their own thoughts on whether the bombs were needed. In this essay, the opinions on the atomic bomb’s necessity will be reviewed by presenting both the pros and cons from a variety of sources.
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.
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 power to destroy a civilization with a single weapon surely should not exist; however, nothing can fully prohibit all nuclear weapons. The high casualties that Japan had encountered were a loud message to the whole rest of the world portraying that exact statement. The diseases and hardships that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had dealt with are situations the world fears; therefore,
The following passage is an excerpt from Katherine Anne Porter’s short story “The Jilting of Granny Weatherall.” Read the passage carefully. Then write an essay in which you analyze how such choices as figurative language, imagery, and dialogue develop the complex emotions the character is feeling.
America’s use of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities also opened the door to other countries challenging them through their own use of nuclear bombs. Many have criticized that the atomic bomb was an act of “muscle flexing” due to the sheer power and destruction caused by the decision to drop the two bombs. (Nicholls, 67). Not only were these bombs a demonstration of the power that these nuclear weapons had, but they were a testament of power that the United States now held. Never before had a country surrendered in war without first being invaded, so the decision to drop the bomb and Japan's subsequent surrender were extremely significant (Baldwin, 39). These bombings didn’t just impact the Japanese, but the whole world and gave way to
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.
In conclusion, Porter's flowing inner monologue provides an opportunity for many interpretations. Did the jilting cause her to be an angry, bitter woman
The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.
When President Harry S. Truman ordered the nuclear attack on Hiroshima on the 6th of August, 1945, most people were supportive of it because it ended the war before an invasion became necessary. Seventy two years since the first and last nuclear attacks, many 'traditionalist' historians still believe that Truman made the best possible decision in the given circumstances. However, in the 1960's, Truman's critics, who reinterpreted history began to believe that the bomb played no significant role in ending the war and was thus unnecessarily used. These revisionist historians have gone so far as to characterize the use of nuclear weapons as “the single greatest acts of terrorism in human history” (Awan, 16). On the other hand, traditionalists argue that the bomb was an important
August 6th, 1945 was a day like any other in Hiroshima, Japan. At exactly 8:15 in the morning, over 100,000 people would be lost to the most powerful weapon ever used, almost instantly. This day effected millions of Japanese civilians, and was documented through the eyes of 6 survivors, 2 of them being physicians, 2 being stay at home moms, and 2 men of faith, in John Hersey’s book, “HIROSHIMA”. The book is based on their experience of the bomb and the many weeks following, which proves to be the most difficult time of their lives.
The first use of nuclear weaponry in warfare occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945 when the United States dropped the atomic bomb known as “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, Japan. The result was devastating, demonstrating the true power of nuclear warfare. Since the incident, the world has been left fearing the possible calamity of another nuclear war. Joseph Siracusa’s Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction explains aspects of nuclear weaponry from simply what a nuclear weapon is, to the growing fear from nuclear warfare advancements in an age of terrorism. The book furthered my education on nuclear weapons and the effect they place on society, physically and mentally.
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)