Speech On The Atomic Age

"Everyone is aware of the difficult and menacing situation in which human society - shrunk into one community with a common fate - finds itself, but only a few acts accordingly. Most people go on living their everyday life: half frightened, half indifferent, they behold the ghostly tragicomedy this is being performed on the international stage before the eyes and ears of the world. But on that stage, on which the actors under the floodlights play their ordained parts, our fate of tomorrow, life or death of the nations, is being decided. It would be different if the problem were not one of things made by man himself, such as the atomic bomb and other means of mass destruction equally

Technology has allowed for the furtherance of warfare, from the invention of gun powder to the splitting of the atom. These findings have propelled the leap of numerous nations’ in the ability to wage war against each other. Of these discoveries, the splitting atom spawned an invention that would hurl the world from conventional warfare into the nuclear age. These ideals were the brainstorming of some of the greatest minds in America and abroad. These scientists began to formulate the creation of the atomic bomb, a device that would change the world in ways that had never been imagined before.

These ventures into atomic agriculture and medicine were primarily fueled by organizations like the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and were used to justify a reason for atomic research that did not revolve around atomic weapons. This concern about the uses of atomic energy is further reflected in Eisenhower’s “Atom’s Peace” speech when he says, “Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace.” This quotation shows the need for peaceful applications of atomic energy.

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.

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.

The power to destroy a civilization with a single weapon surely should not exist; however, nothing can fully prohibit all nuclear weapons. The high casualties that Japan had encountered were a loud message to the whole rest of the world portraying that exact statement. The diseases and hardships that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had dealt with are situations the world fears; therefore,

The various miore events of invasion and prevention of expansion had sharpen the Cold War to become what it was. The various events in question mostly involved the United States and Russia arguing over territory. Although these events influenced the outcome the Cold War, undoubtedly the formation of the Soviet sphere, the Truman Doctrine, and the attack on Afghanistan prolonged tensions during the Cold War. During the span of a few years, the demand and production of nuclear arms was increased significantly.

“The Evil Empire” — that is what, at the height of the arms race, United States President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union (Rudolph 1). Unsurprisingly, the Soviet Union was similarly upset at the United States. This anger is what fueled the arms race. During the Cold War, due to fears of nuclear attack, the US and Soviet Union designed and deployed thousands of nuclear warheads, each hoping to deter the other from nuclear launch with threat of counter attack (O’Neal 1). This massive arms buildup, however, had many negative effects on the US. To recognize the impact that the arms race continues to have on today, it is crucial to understand not only its causes, but also its immediate impacts on the US economy, society, foreign

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.

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.

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.

The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.

Can you imagine yourself getting evaporated in a blink of an eye? I know no one wants to imagine that, but it might become reality soon if countries still keep possessing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, these weapons of mass eradication are an upcoming threat across the world because of its capacity for destruction which is why I chose to tell people my opinion on this matter. Additionally, I adopted this crisis as my essay topic because nuclear arms aren't just a domestic problem; it is a dilemma on a global scale. My aim today is to give you my two cents on why the prohibition of nuclear arsenals is the right thing to do! To stop this emergency, I will need all my readers help in protesting in peaceful ways against the arms because as Martin Luther once said: “Nothing good ever comes from violence.”

In today’s day and age many people around the world have become dependent on what seems like useless or needless things such as the internet and television. This is one of the negative effects of science and the technology that comes with it. Some of these technologies seem harmless, like cellphones and computers, but it seems as the years progress people want more and more power, literally and figuratively. The element uranium is a perfect example; this element has the power to do well in generating power for millions of people, and the power to do wrong in nuclear warfare.

The existence of nuclear weapons for better or worse have indubitably impacted our lives in one way or the other. There are the some who find these weapons to be singularly beneficial. For example Defence Analyst Edward Luttwak said “we have lived since 1945 without another world war precisely because rational minds…extracted a durable peace from the very terror of nuclear weapons.” (Luttwak, 1983). Moreover, Robert Art and Kenneth Waltz both extrapolate that “the probability of war between American and Russia or between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is practically nil precisely because the military planning and deployments of each,