Summary Of Thank God For The Atom Bomb By Paul Fussell

It does so by portraying how the conflict in society vs. society. The societies in this book are the upper Western part of the world and the upper Western part of the world. It shows the conflict society vs. society by the United States going against and Allies going against Germany and its allies. After Hitler committed suicide the Germans started falling apart and eventually left the war. This book is based on building the first atomic bomb. If the bomb for someone to help he had to be trusted and that the person won't tell anyone. “Oppenheimer Shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the most dangerous secret in the world, argued the FBI, because he might leak information to his communist friends, and from there, to the Soviet Union,”(49-50). The U.S. had manufactured it first. The only countries in the war left were the U.S. and Japan. Japan would not surrender knowing that the U.S. This kept going on and they did not surrender. The Americans thought “If the atomic bomb could shock Japan into giving up, it had to be used,”(189). The bomb, in the long run, was later dropped in Japan. They still did not surrender. Later another bomb was dropped and they gave up. After that, the war ended and everybody heard and was scared on the capabilities on what the bomb can do. The Bomb being dropped in Japan was then later spoken a lot and was really controversial. Many thought that it was ok that the U.S.

This just puts things into perspective because if the Japanese were to never surrender many more deaths, on both sides, would have occurred. John Kenneth Galbraith has a total different opinion about the atom bombs, arguing that they “were unnecessary and unjustified because the war was ending anyway” and that it was “a difference, at most, of two or three weeks.” Fussell disagrees with this by saying that there was no proof of the Japanese surrendering and that the kamikazes kept sinking American ships. He uses statistical proof and said that two weeks mean 14,000 American deaths or wounded and three weeks would be 21,000 American deaths or wounded. With 7,000 American deaths per week and no promise of the Japanese surrendering within those three weeks, it is hard to say that dropping the bomb was not necessary. Fussell used pathos in this section by saying “those weeks meant the world if you’re one of the thousands or related to one of them.” Families of those would have been

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

President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the direct cause for the end of World War II in the Pacific. The United States felt it was necessary to drop the atomic bombs on these two cities or it would suffer more casualties. Not only could the lives of many soldiers have been taken, but possibly the lives of many innocent Americans. The United States will always try to avoid the loss of American civilians at all costs, even if that means taking lives of another countries innocent civilians.

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.

Mr. Tanimoto consciously repeated to himself “‘These are human beings’”(Hersey 1946), as he attempted to save paralyzed, dying men and women, in the book “Hiroshima” by John Hersey. This nonfiction book was published on August 31 1946, a year after the atomic bombing fell on Hiroshima, Japan. This publication was raw, uncensored, and truthful. John Hersey unapologetically revealed the gruesome damages done by the bombing, while also silencing those who believed that the atomic bomb was a justified attack. Hersey’s brilliant journalism and ability to write this story without bias, is why this book was selected. The author did not want those who died to be remembered as casualties, but as mothers, fathers and children. Hersey wrote this book about the the physical, and psychological impact this bomb had on both survivors and victims of the atomic bomb. There were many historical events that contributed to the cause and effect of the atomic attack; historical events such as industrialization, the trench wars, and militarism. This was not just a simple bomb, but a complex attack on humanity.

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.

Intense moral justification was needed in order to make the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki however, President Truman was ultimately the man who made the final decision to launch ‘Little Boy’ and destroy Hiroshima, Nagasaki and their civilians, thus forcing an end to the war. Although there were many alternatives presented to President Truman, it is unknown as to whether they would have actually succeeded in ending the war or producing less casualties. Truman made the decision to drop these bombs in the heat of war but his justification of having a military target appeared extremely unrealistic, as both cities were full of innocent civilians. The morality of the bombs have been debated over the years, however the publication of the actual damage to civilian life caused a strong voice opposed to the usage in the 60 years following the action.

Many debates have been provoked based on President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The debate is not solely based on the bomb being dropped, but more on the actual necessity and intention of the bomb being dropped.

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.

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

In Paul Russell’s passage from Thank God for the Atomic Bomb, he describes how the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fully necessary. Russell agrees with President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs because of the logical reasons. He gives examples that compare to the overall effect to America, and the positive things that happen to America such as the fact that the war would be over. I agree with Fussell’s opinion because the atomic bomb solved many problems in one shot, including and most importantly the war.

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 dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 by the Americans is a very controversial issue with no definite answer. Both sides of the issue have very justifiable arguments. Reasons for dropping the bomb include the fact that Truman’s options were limited at this point in the war, that the bomb did have the desired outcome of Japans surrender and that the majority of reasons America had for dropping the bomb are justifiable. On the other hand, the atomic bomb was complete new technology and there is no way that Japan could have possibly been ready for it and for that reason the dropping of the atomic bomb is very

In John Hersey's Hiroshima, he based his book upon the one perspective that, the bombing of Hiroshima was an act of inhumanity. What Hersey failed to do was to give the perspective of the Americans. Hersey did not account for the Pearl Harbor bombing of 1941 or the death march in the Japanese Bataan Camps in 1942. Without giving both perspectives, Hersey does not give the reader a fair chance to form their own opinion; instead, the reader is swayed into Hersey's bias beliefs of the event.