The Atomic Bombs On Hiroshima And Nagasaki

Few events in world history have made a global impact on humanity as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The decision to drop the bombs made by Harry S. Truman, the newly sworn in commander-in-chief after the death of Franklin Roosevelt, has been one scrutinized not only for the destruction of the act, but also in itself for the actual motive of the decision. Was the decision to use the Atomic Bombs one to quickly end the war to save American lives, or did Truman do his best to prevent Soviet influence in East Asia, to try and scare the Soviet Union from making any kind of territorial claims in Japan? Because there is ample evidence for both points of view, it's impossible to declare one to be the case. While both sides have good evidence, it's likely Truman made his decisions not only to end the war quickly, but to also avoid massive casualties on both sides, and to intimidate the Soviets. This was the genius of Truman's actions, it was able to end the war that was destroying the globe's nations for nearly six years, while also preventing another war from occurring in the future, and to keep peace in the process. As far as today, there has been no atomic warfare

During the war that raged on between the allies and Japan before, losses for Japan at both Iwo Jima and Okinawa had been great, their navy was being defeated and becoming less effective and the air corps they had, was destroyed. Knowing this President Harry Truman at the time had many strategic alternatives for ending the war: invade the Japanese mainland, hold a demonstration for Japanese dignitaries of the destructive power of an atomic bomb, drop it on any selected industrial Japanese

Had he chosen a different alternative , the world as we know it today might not have been the same and the balance of powers of the world would be extremely different. “The losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki assuredly were horrific, but they pale when compared to the estimates of 17 to 24 million deaths attributed to the Japanese during their rampage from Manchuria to New Guinea. The historian Gavan Daws accurately described "Asia under the Japanese" as "a charnel house of atrocities." During the months of war following the attack on Pearl Harbor, reliable estimates establish that between 200,000 to 300,000 people died each month either directly or indirectly at Japanese hands. The historian Robert Newman tellingly reveals that "the last months were in many ways the worst; starvation and disease aggravated the usual beatings, beheadings and battle deaths. It is plausible to hold that upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners, would have died each month the Japanese Empire struggled in its death throes beyond July 1945." (Yes: Truman’s Simple Decision). It was clear that the Japanese war machine had to be stopped, the atomic bomb was the fastest way to draw the war to a close and prevent the deaths of thousands of Americans. While the instantaneous destruction of entire cities and their occupants is without a doubt horrendous, It was the by far the best of a multitude of other

When faced with the prospect of killing a few to save many, it may be difficult to discern whether doing so would be moral or not. However, when Harry S. Truman was forced to decide whether or not to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, the moral choice was clear: dropping the bombs was the most viable option available that would end World War II, minimize casualties on both sides of the war, and ensure American victory. Every other option available to Truman would have resulted in a much greater loss for the people of both Japan and the United States. While dropping atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was undeniably an atrocity, which resulted in over 300,000 casualties, this gruesome attack was the most ethical option available to Harry S. Truman for defeating Japan’s barbaric regime and ending the bloodiest war in human history.

President Harry Truman determined to release nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the optimum decision of circumstances that supported the surrender of Japan in World War 2. Many arguments will doubt the atomic bombs had made results any better. While, the other handful of individuals, supporting Truman’s authorization, have considerable justification. Toss away the reasons for disagreement and contemplate the motives that lead descending atomic bombs as the right choice of a weapon.

Document 1 shows that President Truman knew the extensive damage the atomic bomb would cause and never once doubted the importance of using it. He stated the bomb was a “military weapon” that was essential to ending World War II. Supporters of the decision to drop the atomic bomb also argued that death is an “inevitable” outcome of war. In Document 3, for example, Henry Stimson called war “the face of death,” and states that although a hundred thousand lives were lost, it was the “least abhorrent alternative.” According to Stimson, if World War II didn’t end, the “fire raids” and the “strangling blockade” would have continued, resulting in more deaths than the atomic bomb caused.

Did we make the right decision in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan during WWII? Till this day ordinary citizens and commanders question if the bombing was ethical. The utilitarian approach supports the argument considering without the bombs millions of lives would’ve been at risk. However, dropping the atomic bombs kept the deaths significantly lower on both sides. I believe the right decision was to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. I’m briefly going to talk about why Truman decided to drop the bomb, why there wasn’t another alternative, and what some felt after the bombing.

Was it necessary for Truman to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan in World War II? On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped by a US aircraft on Hiroshima. This atomic bomb was dropped to force Japan into surrender, this bomb alone destroyed Hiroshima and over 90,000 people were instantly killed in the explosion and an additional 100,000 people perished from burns and radiation sickness. On August 9, 1945 only three days later, the second atomic bomb was dropped over Nagasaki resulting in an additional 80,000 casualties of the Japanese population. The people of Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945 soon after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many people opposed to the use of the atomic bombs because people argued that Truman 's decision to use atomic bombs was a barbaric act of cruelty. People also argued that the US government had other ulterior motives to drop the atomic bomb that were necessary for America 's ideals. Necessary motives like presenting The Soviet Union a strong message for the Soviets to watch their step around America. A conventional way of warfare for Japan 's surrender would have costed many more American lives. Truman and others believed that the atomic bomb was necessary to save American lives but also Japanese lives. These actions from President Truman marked the end of the most destructive war in history. The two sources that will used and evaluated in this paper are is The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb by Dennis D. Wainstock (1996)

One of the continuing debatable topics that is still being discussed is whether the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan in August 1945 was the right military action to do. There are many people who believe that there were other alternatives instead of dropping the bomb. Other people believe that the bomb was the only strategy that would work in order to end the war with the Japanese empire. Harry S. Truman found himself under the decision of whether to drop the bomb or hold back. Needless to say, whether Truman had held back from dropping the bomb or not, the war with the Japanese would have continued, causing more American casualties and more destruction. The dropping of the atomic bomb was a necessary action because it spared not just American

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are generally seen as successes in Truman’s presidency, although there are a large number of people who see it as a failure as well as a horrendous crime against humanity. However, by making the decision to

WWII was one of the deadliest wars in history. The war was ended only when the United States introduced the atomic bomb to the world and destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. A lot of controversy surrounds the decision made by President Truman to drop the bombs on Japan. The casualties were high and many were civilians, and with this it breeds the following question: Was it the right decision? Could there have been something else the United States could have done before going to such extreme measures? The decision to bomb the Japanese wasn’t an easy one and although the right decision was made it had more to do with political, ethical, and military reasoning than morality.

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

The atomic bombing of Japan was an unjustified decision that many considered was inhumane. Through the use of atomic bombs, many innocents were harmed in one way or another. Berger described the atomic bombing of Hiroshima as "a terrorist act" and that it was "evil". While Berger 's argument was extreme, the U.S. still remains unjustified because they did not know exactly how much damage the bomb would actually cause. Bombing Japan, the U.S. harmed thousands of civilians and displayed the effectiveness of the atomic bomb despite having other options to end the war.

August 6th, 1945, 70,0000 lives were ended in a matter of seconds. The United States had dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. Today many argue whether or not the U.S. should have taken such a drastic measure. Was it entirely necessary that we drop such a devastating weapon? To answer that first we must look at was going on in the world at the time of the conflict. The U.S. had been fighting a massive war since 1941. Moral was most likely low, and resources were at the same level as moral. Still both sides continued to fight and both were determined to win. Obviously the best thing that could have possibly happened would have been to bring the war to a quick end with a minimum of allied casualties. Harry Truman’s decision to

Would you kill a thousand to save millions? Well the drastic actions taken by the United States did save millions. There were two actions that had to occur to save the millions and end the war, the dropping of the two atomic bombs being the first of their kind were to be the most powerful bomb ever invented using atomic and nuclear forces so create it and packed over 20,000 tons of TNT and was about ten feet long. The bomber that transported and dropped them was called the 'Enola Gay’. The two Japanese cities’ that were struck by such creations were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this essay I will be discussing on how the actions taken by the United States of America were completely justified in dropping the two bombs as is established a future power image, saved millions, ended the war and ended the axis of evil.