Bombing Of Hiroshima Pros And Cons

I believe that the decision made by the United States to bomb Japan was not thought through well enough and could have been approached differently. There were many possible alternatives to setting off the bombs that could have saved many innocent lives or at least lowered the death toll of Japan. One alternative that could have been more successful was if the United states had chosen to continue conventional bombing. There was a survey taken in Japan, called the Strategic Bombing Survey, that proved Japan was more than likely to surrender soon due to the pressure of the United States dropping continuous, conventional bombs (Arguments Against the Bomb: Argument #4.4). If truman had decided to wait and continue to use conventional bombing, the

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.

Ray Bradbury once said, “After Hiroshima was bombed, I saw a photograph of the side of a house with shadows of the people who had lived there burned into the wall from the intensity of the bomb. The people were gone, but their shadows remained.” Keep in mind that quote only described the intensity of “Little Boy”, the nickname for the bomb that devastated Hiroshima. The bombs that dilapidated both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were harrowing, gruesome, and in all sincerity, needless. The reasoning people have given to justify the bombings was because it was a military necessity; they thought the atom bombs were needed to save lives and to end the war quickly. However, the Merriam-Webster dictionary explicitly defines a ‘military necessity’ as “the necessity attending belligerent military operations that is held to justify all measures necessary to bring an enemy to complete submission excluding those (as cruelty, torture, poison, perfidy, wanton destruction) that are forbidden by modern laws and customs of war.” According to this interpretation of a ‘military necessity’, both of the bombings do not match this definition. Various people wonder why the U.S. would condone the use of the explosives and inflict such destruction on others, considering that they had first hand experiences on devastating attacks that seemed gratuitous. Many have argued that there were multiple alternatives to such a catastrophe, and the bombs did not have to be utilized. Others state that the bombings were

The process of this investigation has revealed to me, the significance of different methods and limitations that historians experience when carrying out studies. When researching past history, authors are able to use hindsight to either enhance or hinder their writing. This was evident through the use of my secondary sources, particularly the analysis of the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima by Taketo Suzuki. I was introduced to the difficulty of gaining accurate and reliable information on an event that is certainly open to question. Since Suzuki is a part of Japan’s Research Center, there are a plethora of sources that are available to him. Although this may seem as great benefit, the challenge comes from careful fact selection.

On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. To this day there is controversy on whether the U.S. should have risked the lives of hundreds of thousands of people to win the second world war. The U.S. Should have considered other options before dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. There were many alternative actions that could have taken place instead of dropping the bomb, but President Truman decided that using it was the best way to get the Japanese to surrender. If he would have chosen differently, the world would be a different place today.

the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Japan during World War II, yet the controversy about the validity of this decision continues in scientific, political and general public circles. Most likely, due to the complexity of the issue and never knowing the outcome if the bombs were not dropped, it will remain unresolved. A lesson that is continually learned in the U.S.-once again in present times-is the importance of acting from facts and not from emotion. It is hoped that all pros and cons are very seriously weighed before any action is taken if and when such a serious decision must be made in the future.

Whether the use of the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II was justified, we will never know. However, the amount of time spent on discussing the use and effect of the bomb seems to be nonexistent. If they talked about the bomb there was no major argument against using the bomb; with that came mystery because they did not understand the bomb. There were factors that they used as an excuse to use the bomb, but these were in the background and later added to make the argument seem more one-sided, in their favor. Whether the use of the atomic bomb proved helpful or not is up to debate. The atomic bomb changed the world, and given the evidence, the use of the bomb was not talked about in detail except for when and where to use it.

In August of 1945, two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, consequently, killing tens of thousands of civilians due to radiation, burns, or turning them immediately into ash. The monstrous bomb sneaks up on innocent civilians and rips their life from them in one foul swoop. The Atomic bomb kills masses of people at one time, but can also save masses of people’s lives from the ongoing war. Herein lies the conflict, since the nuclear bomb is extremely lethal, but effective, should it be used in war? Do you believe that this act was ethical? The atomic bomb should have never been used in past wars and should never be used today because its deadly side effects.

The year was 1945. World War II was nearly over. Germany had been defeated and the allied forces were sure to win the war. The only unsure thing was how many lives would be lost in defeating Japan. The United States decided to drop the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. On that day the Enola Gay dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. Three days later the United States dropped "Fat Boy" on Nagasaki. 240,000 civilians, mostly women and children, lost their lives on these two days. On August 14, 1945 Japan surrendered unconditionally. Was it necessary?

On August 6, 1945, the United States of America dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. For decades, there have been feuds relating to the justification of the bombing. Was the U.S justified? It depends on your vantage point. The United States was justified due to the unprovoked attack and bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, which occurred three years prior to the bombing of Hiroshima, it was necessary to stop the war because it saved thousands of American lives. Until then, the fight had never been on United States soil. Innocent men, women and children did not have to worry about being killed on their land until the infamous day: December 7, 1941, the attack of Pearl Harbor. On that day, the

Furthermore, the U.S justification had reasoning behind the dropping of the atomic bomb. Another example of why the bombing was justified is “As the executive who ordered the dropping of the bomb, I think the sacrifice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was

On August 6, 1945, the 33rd president of the United States, Harry S. Truman, made the executive decision to drop a 10,000 pound atomic bomb named “Little Boy” on the city of Hiroshima in Japan. Three days later, Truman ordered another atomic bomb, called “Fat Man” to be dropped on another Japanese city, Nagasaki. Each bomb had a blast radius of fifty miles. The decision to utilize these weapons of mass destruction will always be a very controversial topic because of the debated morality of the decision.

“The only use for an atomic bomb is to keep somebody else from using one” - George Wald. This quote proves one fact about the use of the atomic bomb. It was on August 6th and 9th that the world changed on an unimaginable scale for the average person. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had an undoubtable affect on the world. However, there was a positive side to using it. There were other reasons for using it, it was for revenge, and it supported the country of Japan. The Atomic Bomb was necessary because although the atomic bomb was deadly, it helped save many lives and avoid a brutal war.

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

People always wonder if the United States decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan were the right choice. Even though the bombs killed and injured many people, Japanese civilians and Japanese soldiers. The decision to drop the bombs on Japan was the right thing to do at that time.