There are many different ways in which WWII could have ended. Rather than taking the risk of dropping atomic bombs on Japan, many people believe that one of the alternative options would have been much more sensible. The variety of possible options the U.S. could have taken to finish the war have been analyzed for years. Though Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of the most controversial and debated topics in history, this researcher believes that he made the right choice. This researcher’s opinion is based off of the facts she has understood to be true in history class. To back up this claim, support for the argument will be provided through intensive research. Scholarly journal articles, …show more content…
Though it is obvious that this researcher believes President Truman took the proper action necessary to end World War II, many people conclude that other options should have been considered.With this ethical debate that has been discussed over decades, comes a variety of possible alternatives to America unleashing nuclear warfare on Japan. Of these include, waiting for the Soviet Union to enter the war, invading Japan, and strengthening and intensifying the naval blockade. According to www. authentichistory.com, military analysts working for the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) in 1945 believed that two things must happen for the Japanese leadership to surrender. “There had to be acceptance of the inevitability of defeat; and a clarification from the Americans that "unconditional surrender" did not mean national annihilation”(Barnes). Supporters of this decision recognize that a Soviet declaration of war on Japan would satisfy the first necessity. By waiting for Russia to enter the war, thousands of innocent lives could have been saved, because the fear of complete annihilation would have caused Japan to surrender before the U.S. could drops the bombs. Invading Japan could have possibly resulted in less overall casualties than those from the nuclear weapons, so it is understandable why some
At this time period of time, President Harry Truman needs to take into account that the Japanese are unlikely to surrender without some heavy persuasion. The Japanese have already attacked at Pearl Harbor, and there is no sign that they will stop anytime soon. Japan is attempting to create more allies to form a strong and dangerous coalition that will threaten the United States and its allies. Fortunately, scientists in the United States have been working on an atomic bomb and now would be the perfect opportunity to utilize it to end the Japanese empire. Rather than authorizing a ground invasion of Japan or negotiating the Japanese terms of surrender, President Truman should use the atomic bomb against Japan to cause a swift surrender of the Japanese empire for the purposes of maintaining global power and preserving the lives of as many American soldiers as possible.
One of the most controversial and heavily scrutinized issue of the twentieth century was President Harry S. Truman’s decision to unleash atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The motives behind Truman’s actions are shrouded in controversy as top military officials publicly denounced the use of such a disastrous weapon. There is overwhelming evidence supporting both sides of the decision, as historians are split in opinion. The United States had been using conventional bombing to try to push Japan over the edge to surrender, but with countless Japanese civilians loyal to their country, invading Japan proved to be more problematic than first thought. Harry S. Truman made the ultimate decision of dropping the atomic bomb in hopes that it would end the war, but the amount of casualties caused by it has historians questioning if it was morally right, “The bomb was unfortunate, but it was the only means to bring Japan to a surrender,” historian Sadao Asada states (Bomb 9). Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable because they would ultimately lead to the end of the war and would demonstrate U.S. supremacy.
In the brutal and deadly Pacific Theater of World War ll, President Truman had to make a crucial decision on whether or not to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. Some believe that Truman’s actions to drop the atomic bomb were unethical and inhumane; however, Truman was justified in his decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan due to the fact that they are our enemy, saving American lives is the first priority, and the atomic bomb will ultimately prevent Russia from gaining control of Asia.
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.
Was it necessary for Truman to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan in World War II? On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped by a US aircraft on Hiroshima. This atomic bomb was dropped to force Japan into surrender, this bomb alone destroyed Hiroshima and over 90,000 people were instantly killed in the explosion and an additional 100,000 people perished from burns and radiation sickness. On August 9, 1945 only three days later, the second atomic bomb was dropped over Nagasaki resulting in an additional 80,000 casualties of the Japanese population. The people of Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945 soon after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many people opposed to the use of the atomic bombs because people argued that Truman 's decision to use atomic bombs was a barbaric act of cruelty. People also argued that the US government had other ulterior motives to drop the atomic bomb that were necessary for America 's ideals. Necessary motives like presenting The Soviet Union a strong message for the Soviets to watch their step around America. A conventional way of warfare for Japan 's surrender would have costed many more American lives. Truman and others believed that the atomic bomb was necessary to save American lives but also Japanese lives. These actions from President Truman marked the end of the most destructive war in history. The two sources that will used and evaluated in this paper are is The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb by Dennis D. Wainstock (1996)
Intense moral justification was needed in order to make the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki however, President Truman was ultimately the man who made the final decision to launch ‘Little Boy’ and destroy Hiroshima, Nagasaki and their civilians, thus forcing an end to the war. Although there were many alternatives presented to President Truman, it is unknown as to whether they would have actually succeeded in ending the war or producing less casualties. Truman made the decision to drop these bombs in the heat of war but his justification of having a military target appeared extremely unrealistic, as both cities were full of innocent civilians. The morality of the bombs have been debated over the years, however the publication of the actual damage to civilian life caused a strong voice opposed to the usage in the 60 years following the action.
On May 1945, a long-awaited V-E Day finally came and brought an end to the war in Europe. But, the war in the Pacific was still continuing against Japan since they are being reluctant to surrender despite the continuous indiscriminate bombardments The United States began to consider about using the atomic bombs as the only way to end the war immediately. On the other hand, many argued that Japan’s staggering losses were enough to force Japan’s surrender. In the end, President Harry S. Truman didn’t hesitate to use this nuclear weapon and bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with only three days interval between the two bombing. As a result, Japan has surrendered, but if I were to make a decision, I haven’t used atomic bombs because it was unnecessary since Japan has virtually lost already.
Did we make the right decision in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan during WWII? Till this day ordinary citizens and commanders question if the bombing was ethical. The utilitarian approach supports the argument considering without the bombs millions of lives would’ve been at risk. However, dropping the atomic bombs kept the deaths significantly lower on both sides. I believe the right decision was to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. I’m briefly going to talk about why Truman decided to drop the bomb, why there wasn’t another alternative, and what some felt after the bombing.
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
During WW2 Truman, the United States President at the time, was asked to make one the toughest decision in History. Choosing between dropping an atomic bomb or invading are both choices that will result in a lot of deaths. The huge diffrence between the two was who died wether it be the Japanese with the bomb, or the American soldiers with the invasion. Trumans decision was supposed to end the war sooner, hence reducing the amount of agony,deaths, stress or any other negative effects that could result in the continous war. Truman's decision on dropping the Atomic Bomb's was an efficient course of action for the Americans, but was deffinantly not the most educated decision. If I had been placed in Truman's shoes and had to make this
As the war came to an end Truman had two main choices on how to finish the war, either drop the atomic bombs on military and civilian target, invade the Japanese mainland or drop the bomb on an uninhabited island as a warning. There were two different less consired options the first being the idea to demonstrate the power of the nuclear bomb by dropping it on an uninhabited island however this option was quickly shut down as advisors stated, “We can propose no technical demonstration likely to end the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.” The second less considered option was to warn Japan before dropping the bomb on a Japanese city however like like a demonstration this was shut down quickly, “There was no assurance that the bomb would work’... They too feared that a warning, followed by a “dud” might stiffen Japan’s moral. There was no reason policy makers concluded, to take this risk.”
Between 1941~1945, along with the war against the Nazis in Europe, the US was engaged in active war against Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbour. At this time(1944), Soviets had survived the attack on the eastern front and remained standing as a power that would soon directly oppose the ideologies of the US and its allies. To determine the decisive factor that brought about the decision to use the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, this investigation will examine the factors and views of those responsible for the bombings, as well as alternatives that existed. This will require insight of Truman’s interaction with his military officials and allies, especially with Russia, as well as possible negotiations with Japan that may have happened prior to the bombings.
Would you kill a thousand to save millions? Well the drastic actions taken by the United States did save millions. There were two actions that had to occur to save the millions and end the war, the dropping of the two atomic bombs being the first of their kind were to be the most powerful bomb ever invented using atomic and nuclear forces so create it and packed over 20,000 tons of TNT and was about ten feet long. The bomber that transported and dropped them was called the 'Enola Gay’. The two Japanese cities’ that were struck by such creations were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this essay I will be discussing on how the actions taken by the United States of America were completely justified in dropping the two bombs as is established a future power image, saved millions, ended the war and ended the axis of evil.
August 6th, 1945, 70,0000 lives were ended in a matter of seconds. The United States had dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. Today many argue whether or not the U.S. should have taken such a drastic measure. Was it entirely necessary that we drop such a devastating weapon? To answer that first we must look at was going on in the world at the time of the conflict. The U.S. had been fighting a massive war since 1941. Moral was most likely low, and resources were at the same level as moral. Still both sides continued to fight and both were determined to win. Obviously the best thing that could have possibly happened would have been to bring the war to a quick end with a minimum of allied casualties. Harry Truman’s decision to
World War II end it, while the Cold War just started. As an old realist like Niccolò Machiavelli would say “the end justifies the means.” The thinker would had agree with President’s Truman decision if only Japan would had been stronger and ready to keep on fighting and a an outcome of understanding would had come out. The poor excused, if payed attention, if Japan does not provide absolute surrender, although its people have sworn loyalty to the Emperor at that time, they would be attack. United States officials Byrnes and Baruh influenced Truman in using Japan, although he denies it, as an experiment arena for the atomic bombs. David McCullough wrote a biography of Truman and he mention how the Secretary of State, Stettinius was truly not an expert of foreign policy and did not know what he was doing.