Paul Fussell

Was the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the American Government unavoidably necessary? This is what Samuel J. Walker intends to uncover in his publication. His argument is that the justifications made by the American Government after the dropping of the Atomic bombs were gross exaggerations and that the reasoning behind their ultimate decision is complicated. He contends that because of their lack of knowledge of the actual damage that the force of the

The bombs were considered a winning weapon and blocked out painful questions about the moral consequences of this technology. They refer to America’s actions against Hiroshima pushed them into moral inversion because of their avoidance of moral and historical responsibility. Lifton and Mitchell’s remarks suggest that atomic bombs not only kill instantaneously, but it also harbours deadly generational potentials. Whereas other weapons at the time did not possess such deadly power. Hence, the reality of radiation made it hard for Americans to continue to rationalize this

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.

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.

Before John Hersey’s novel, Hiroshima, Americans viewed Japanese as cruel and heartless people. This warped perspective caused the majority of American citizens to feel complacent about the use of the atomic bomb against civilians. Americans, in many ways, were blinded by their own ignorance to notice the severity of the destruction suffered by not only the city of Hiroshima but, more importantly, the people who lived there. The six testimonies in Hiroshima illustrate the strength and optimistic attitude of the Japanese people. In this essay, I will discuss the feelings towards the ethics surrounding the use of the atomic bomb, next I will look at two testimonies and how their lives

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

Thesis 1: It is arguable that America’s use of the atomic bomb on Japan was the best method possible to end World War II, especially when taking into account the lives of soldiers and civilians, in addition to the costs of continued warfare. (NAT, 7.3.III.D & 7.3.III.E)

“Thank God for the Atom Bomb” is an essay wrote by Paul Fussell in 1981 during the forty-second anniversary of the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The title of the essay is very provocative since a lot of people consider those bombs as inhuman and unethical. However, Fussell, in his essay gives a different point of view. In other words he gives us a point of view of someone who was the in the middle of the combat and even got wounded fighting in France. In the introduction to his essay, Fussell stated that “the importance of experience, in influencing, if not determining one’s views about that use of the atom bomb”.

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.

At the time no one could have seen the devastating effects of radiation and destruction it caused. In the article, the scientist focuses on the decision to drop the atomic bomb and how unethical it was. According to Frisch (1970), “The unrest among scientists over the decision to use the bomb without warning or demonstration was

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

In 1945 the entire world could have died. The sacrificial freedom and silence by a few would eventually save the American masses. While the decision to develop The Manhattan Project and drop the Atomic bomb on Japan surely ended World War II, there was a huge debate about the overall process and the social implications of allowing such a disastrous event to take place. There was a race to defeat the growing power of Hitler’s Germany, but that is not where the bomb landed. Scientists that had devoted their time to create the bomb felt they should have a voice in how it was used, but they were ignored. President Truman’s Interim Committee, a military General, and a group of scientists could not agree on how to use this new weapon of mass destruction. It was not easy for the opposition or those in favor of dropping the atomic bomb to make the decision of how to use it. It is important to understand the development of the bomb’s creation as well as the ramifications of its use in order to clearly understand both side’s opinion of its effects.

The Hiroshima bombing took place for numerous reasons. At the time, President Truman had to make difficult decisions regarding the bombing. The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima during World War II. Dropping the bomb would kill approximately 200,000 Japanese and bring forth massive destruction to the city (Yoneyama 23). If the president failed to take this brave step, the United States of America would have risked invasion by Japan. It is argued that if Japan invaded the United States, more casualties were inevitable. President Truman took into consideration the political, moral, and military benefits and the potential harms for bombing Hiroshima. This paper will expound upon the reasons why I support the Hiroshima bombing.

“[It] made the prospect of future war unendurable.” Writes Oppenheimer. “It has led us up those last few steps to the mountain pass; and beyond there is a different country.” What he refers to is the Atomic bomb—the arsenal of righteousness; the weapon of mass destruction used to end over 185,000 lives. Marking the start of the nuclear age, the atomic bomb took science from hopeful to horrific—a transition into an ethically grim world where morality seemed strapped by the insecurity and terror brought by war. Were such weapons meant to do good? Or were they simply examples of what could be