Leo Szilard's Use Of Atomic Bombs

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.

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 pressing question still lingers: Was the United States justified in using the Atomic Bomb against Japan during WWII? World War II stands as the bloodiest and deadliest war of all time. It involved more than thirty countries and resulted in over fifty million civilian and military deaths. It lasted six years, beginning with Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939. As the Allied Powers (mainly the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union) and the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were in direct conflict with each other, many wonder if the cost of victory was too extreme. In late 1941, the process of creating the world’s first, most deadly weapon began. The production of the first atomic bomb was code named “the Manhattan Project.” After months of production, August 6, 1945, America dropped the “Little Boy” bomb on Hiroshima, wiping out ninety percent of the city. August 9, 1945, just three days after the devastation of the first bomb, America dropped the “Fat Man” bomb on Nagasaki. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was not necessary, nor justified in ending World War II. Due to the fact that America targeted heavily civilian populated cities (with limited military value), that Japan was in a position of surrender before the bomb was dropped, and the fact that the U.S. did not give enough time for Japan to process the devastation of the first bomb before the second in Nagasaki shows that America’s decision to drop the atomic bomb was entirely unjustified.

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.

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.

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

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.

Perhaps the most controversial and heavily scrutinized issue of the twentieth century was President Harry Truman’s decision to unleash atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945. While the sequence of events preceding that fateful summer morning of August 6,1945 are fully understood, the motives behind Truman’s actions are shrouded in controversy. Top military officials publicly denounced the use of such a horrendous weapon, while the obvious advantages to the bomb, traditionalists argue, was a shortened Pacific War. Parallactic views between traditional beliefs and revisionist theories suggest that the issue is still very much unresolved. Why is the issue so hotly debated? Partially because of the overwhelming

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

In this essay the scientists, Szilard and his 59 consigners, drafted a petition to the President of the United States, in hopes that he would not allow the use of atomic bombs during the war. The scientists who worked in the field of atomic power for many years, want the President to know that using atomic bombs could increase ruthlessness, which the country has already started on a journey to do so. They go on to state that the Air

Intro – A short introductions on the modes of persuading the President’s decision on dropping the atomic bomb by explaining the ethos, pathos, and logos in the letter.

The issue of Hiroshima bombing by the United States army during the Second World War has been a key topic in the world for decades now. Different arguments have been raised on this issue where some support and others criticize the incident. However, Simon Jenkins the author of the article Obama should not apologize for Hiroshima raises a different argument where he confidently believes that Obama should not apologize for Hiroshima but rather he should learn from the incident. Jenkins main point is that apologies are cheap and thus Obama should explain, justify and learn from the incident. He achieves this through the use of logos where he cites different past incidents and pathos where he arouses audience emotions by describing the pain of non-combatants in the incident. However, he fails in the application of ethos since his credibility and authority is not guaranteed in the article.

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.

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.

Some regard the atomic bomb as “the thank God for the atom bomb”. This places God on the U.S. side and regards the bombs as our saving grace. This bomb forced the Japanese to surrender which in turn proved the U.S. to be the heroes who saved the American’s lives.1 The Americans intended on ending the war but did not expect to end it with such a large number of casualties. The results of the atomic bomb and how it effected the Japanese people both emotionally and physically will be addressed. “The bombs marked both an end and a beginning—the end of an appalling global conflagration in which more than 50 million people were killed and the beginning of the nuclear arms race and a new world in which