Examining The Use Of The Atomic Bomb

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.

To strengthen the realistic approach in explaining the dropping of the atomic bomb, comparing it to the idealistic or liberal standards and weighing out the possible outcomes could shed some light on the decision making process. So if put into perspective, if liberalism was to have been the underlying foundation behind the decision making process in whether to drop the atomic bomb or not—obviously it would have not been dropped. Liberalism is basically the opposite of realism. Liberalism builds its premises on cooperation and how things ought to be. If President Harry Truman were to follow

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.

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.

The dropping of the atomic bombs was so devastating because no one saw it coming. Although, the bombs shortened the war the lives of thousands were taken including men, women, and innocent children. The United States did send the Japanese a warning stating what they were going to do, but the citizens refused to pay attention to the warnings.When the bombings took place there were a lot of different arguments that will be discussed in this paper. These events took place on August 6, 1945, and August 9, 1945, and about 225,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many individuals have shared their opinions stating why they are for or against the bomb.

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.

This investigation assesses to what extent the atomic bomb was necessary to end the Second World War. This investigation will be limited to the years 1939 to 1945, the duration of World War II, to assess the justifications for the bombing. However, this investigation will also examine sources as recent as the 2010s to evaluate the objective necessity of the bombing because it has remained a consistently controversial topic despite the time difference. Additionally, the necessity of the bomb is a matter that is independent from the initial bombing because its effect went beyond just ending the war, and, contextually, it is essential to examine its causes and effects with respect to events both before and after the war. Throughout this investigation, novels, memoirs, and web articles will be analyzed with evaluations of their origins, purpose, values, and limitations.

Thesis: The dropping of the atomic bomb during World War II by the United States on Japan was a justified act. Not only was the dropping of the atomic bomb used to save American lives, but it prevented the war from lingering on, taking the lives of more civilians. The bomb did not just make sense, but it saved lives, despite taking some, therefore making the atomic bomb a reasonable action. It is not war mentality to think of preserving the lives of innocent people when the safety of the world is at stake. World War II, taking place in Japan, was likely to continue to linger on which would produce more deaths in the long run. In a book entitled, Thank God for the Atomic Bomb, by WWII soldier, Paul Fussell, he noted that "The people who preferred an invasion to a bombing seemed to have no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves. I have already noted what a few more days would mean to the luckless troops and sailors on the spot....on Okinawa, only a few weeks before Hiroshima, 123,000 Japanese and Americans killed each other. War is immoral. War is cruel". By saying this it proves that although dropping the atomic bomb had some consequences, not dropping it, and letting the war carry on had far worse outcomes, and those who did want an invasion were not willing to go fight for it, again proving the high demand for the wars end. Then, in a speech made by President Truman he explains, "My chief

This investigation assesses President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will determine whether or not his decision was justified. This investigation will scrutinize the reasons that made Harry Truman feel inclined to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Preventing further casualties along with the desire to end the war are two argumentative points that will be analyzed to determine if they were strong enough to justify the dropping

I am a high school student writing to urge you to take a stronger position on the issue of the atomic bomb attacks against Japan in your textbook World History: The Modern Era. I understand your desire to examine the issue objectively and refrain from offending those with a personal connection to the event. However, it is my strong opinion that you should support one side of the issue, specifically the side in favor of the atomic bomb strike, for the reason that they were necessary. President Harry S. Truman’s decision to attack Japan with nuclear weapons, while criticized for moral reasons, was justified by the unyielding resolve of the Japanese people, the substantial remaining resources of the Japanese war machine, and massive estimated casualty rates associated with an invasion of Japan.

December 7, 1941, Japan performed a surprise attack on America at Pearl Harbor. "According to Japanese feudal code of honor, the idea of a surprise is recommended and it raises no moral problems" (Sulzberger 146). During Japan's attack, they broke the seal of trust. "Japan's Ambassador and Diplomatic agent were in Washington pretending to have been seeking a negotiated settlement between the two countries" (Sulzberger 146). America lost over 3,000 service men from this bombing. This type of betrayal could only cause anger and determination to strike back.

This investigation focuses on the use and necessity of the atomic bomb in World War II. To what extent did the atomic bomb dropped by the United States during World War II save lives? This will be investigated using websites, books, military accounts, and newspaper articles. Military calculations of what potentially could have happened had the United States invaded Japan instead of dropping the bomb will be researched. Also, information from the Manhattan Project, reinterpretations of the event, and military strategies of several countries will be used. The physical effects of the bomb on the victims will also be considered. Alternate opinions of why the bomb was dropped will be discussed.

This investigation analyzes the influences affecting President Harry S. Truman 's 1945 decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan during World War II. Over the past 57 years, many have debated whether this was a genocidal act or a necessary military decision. To examine the driving forces present when Truman ordered the employment of atomic weaponry, this study focuses on presidential speeches, minutes of White House meetings, and military reports. The mindset of the American people, their leaders, and the state of the American military campaign late in the war are evaluated to determine the primary reasons for his order to use the atomic bombs.

Without the bomb, we would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were destroyed, killing more people than with the bomb. About 140,000 people were killed or died within months when the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. A couple days later, about 80,000 people died after the U.S bombed Nagasaki. The U.S decision to develop and use the atomic bomb during WWII was to end the war, reduce the amount of American and Japanese casualties, and to destroy Japan’s war production sites, eventually ending the war.

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