Pros And Cons Of The Atomic Bomb Bombing

Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a clear-cut decision. Nonetheless, the decision had to be made. Harry S. Truman and his associated generals (Stimson and Groves) had to determine how to swiftly end the war in the most humane way. Was it better to end the war immediately with gruesome force or to continue the war? In the end, Truman and his generals, the moral actors, decided that the best course of action was to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. Truman stated that “it was a decision to loose the most terrible of all destructive forces for the wholesale slaughter of human beings” (Truman, 1945). As a result of this decision, it appeared that thousands of Japanese citizens’ lives had been invalidated. Truman refuted this idea by saying “the decision to use the bomb saved not only American soldiers but also the Japanese,” (Hasegawa, 2005). Including both the lives of Japanese civilians and soldiers. With this reasoning, Truman is trying to instill the idea that he had made the most ethical decision by sacrificing the lives of the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the end of the war. Originally, it was planned that the bomb would be dropped on Kyoto, a populous city, but he quickly decided against it as the casualty count would be incredibly high (Truman, 1945). With this hesitation to release such carnage in Japan, targeting citizens in wartime is clearly immoral, but with the circumstances at hand, the decision wasn’t necessarily unethical.

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.

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 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.

This essay we will be discussing the pros and the cons of President Truman’s ethical decision to drop the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There were many people against dropping the bomb on Japan as well as people in favor of bombing. I believe that President Truman made the correct decision when bombing the country of Japan. President Truman had to make decisions based on what would be right for the people of the United States and what is also helpful to the United States military. There were many decisions that were deemed either ethical or unethical made by President Truman going into the dropping of the atomic bomb.

In 1945, at the order of President Harry Truman, the United States of America dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which triggered controversy worldwide. The debate arose between two sides, with one favoring the decision and the other calling it inhumane. Those favoring the decision agreed with President Truman, that dropping the atomic bomb was justified because it ended World War II. Those in favor also believed the bombing was justified because the US had given Japan a chance to surrender before they made the decision to drop the bomb. Those against the decision claimed Japan was ready to surrender and the bombing was unnecessary.

While Truman himself stated in an August 1945 radio address and further emphasized in his 1955 memoirs that the atomic bombs were dropped in order to “shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans” (Doc H), historians and government officials are split on the issue of the true motivations behind dropping the a-bombs. However, given his sour relationship with Stalin, it is clear that Truman intended the bomb to be used more than merely as an atomic weapon. When the Truman Administration made the decision to drop the atomic bombs, it was neither completely military or diplomatic. The decision was militaristic in that it tried to end the war with Japan in the most efficient manner possible, and was diplomatic in that it tried to prevent the Soviets from gaining too much

Ethics and morals are a very important to all people and dropping these bombs showed the United State government’s true colors during the war. Dropping the atomic bombs on the two Japanese cities killed many innocent civilians and drastically damaged Japan and its people as a whole. Killing innocent civilians is unethical and morally incorrect. The intention of dropping the atomic bombs to cause a surrender from Japan was correct, but the government surely could have planned a better way to make Japan surrender just as quickly. On July 17th a petitions was made to President Truman attempting to change his view on the bombing; ethics were brought up as the petitions states “we feel, however, that such attacks on japan could not be justified, at least not unless… Japan were given an opportunity to surrender” (A Petition). This quote shows that the people believed Japan should have been given an opportunity to surrender before falling victim to a devastating nuclear

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.

During the 20th century, specifically the year 1945, the United States of America had two atomic bombs that the commander and chief, and president at the time, Harry Truman, knew about. President Truman plan was to drop the bombs on two of Japans cities, Hiroshima first and then Nagasaki. Truman’s plans went accordingly, which to this day leads to a very controversial topic on whether or not dropping the atomic bombs was a good or bad thing. There is evidence and reasoning to back up both claims, in which everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, in my opinion, I believe the choice of Harry Truman to drop the two atomic bombs was the right choice because it saved lives, helped end the war faster, and it was merely the only choice for the sake of the American soldiers.

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

There are many reasons why we should not have dropped the atomic bomb. So I will tell you some reasons why we should not have dropped the atomic bomb.

The mass homicide of innocent individuals has been occurring for decades and there is no sign of it stopping anytime soon. On August 1945, the United States dropped two separate atomic bombs on the well-known Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs, Little Boy and Fat Man, ended up taking the lives of approximately 200,000 innocent Japanese civilians. When America dropped those two bombs on Japan, nobody saw it coming. The Japanese government were possibly just as terrified and surprised as the citizens were, as they had never experienced something as tragic as this happen in their own city. It is truly a day that will never be forgotten in history. However, most Americans have this tendency to try and justify the atomic bombings by saying that it’s simply

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