The Cold War : New Technology And Human Testing

It was the middle of the 20th century, the world was in disorder yet peace as it did its best to recover from World War II. Nations from both sides of what is still considered one of the greatest outbreaks of war in history were not only competing in the air, in the sea, and on land, but also in the field of science. After the war, America made an astutely tactful choice: they took the German scientists for employment in the states. The outcome of this tactic included not only the advantages America saw in the recovery from the war, but also those which have evolved and advanced into many scientific advancements we see today; some of these include the Saturn V rocket, which made the success of the Apollo 11 mission possible. This event, Operation Paperclip, as it was called, was not the only paramount occurrence leading to the success of America’s scientific field, however. The Manhattan Project also led to things we still see today, such as the still-tense subject of nuclear weapons and the aptly following Nuclear Proliferation Act. Simply put, Operation Paperclip and other related events paved the way for many scientific advancements still seen today, and it established the method of working internationally to achieve great things.

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 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.

They came, unwarned. On the 7th of December 1941, the Japanese executed a full-fledged attack on Pearl Harbor. They mercilessly created havoc, with attacks that caused the sinking of eighteen American ships, as well as 170 aircrafts. The casualties were dreadful, with 1,177 of those lost lives had been of the crewmen. The very next day, President Roosevelt declared war on Japan, and thus the United States’ involvement of World War II. Americans of every state were absolutely enraged and bent on their will for vengeance against the Asian country. Within the shadows of galvanized America, Robert Oppenheimer had set his infamous Manhattan Project into action. This project was so disclosed that only a limited number of men truly knew of its purpose. The clandestine project held prior securities to the point in which famous scientists had to use codenames in order to visit Los Alamos, even wives were kept in the dark, and only key scientists could bring their wives along with them. (Source D) This project had been the discreet creation of the Atomic Bombs. Time and time again, this topic had never really dissipated, its controversial who, what and whys prompting generations to debate its palpable purpose. Was the aim really focused for the “good of all?” Was it for America’s self-preservation and wish to promptly put an end to all of the suffering? Many Americans to this day still believe and argue for the usefulness of the atomic bombings, that the droppings were justified.

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.

The atomic bomb was seen as a weapon capable of ending the war, and it did just that. Due to its quick and magnificent destruction capabilities, the United States could avoid hand to hand combat and save the lives of many Americans. On the other hand, the bombs were seen as unnecessarily brutal. Because of its lethal range, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed.

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.

The dropping of the atomic bombs was so devastating because no one saw it coming. Although, the bombs shortened the war the lives of thousands were taken including men, women, and innocent children. The United States did send the Japanese a warning stating what they were going to do, but the citizens refused to pay attention to the warnings.When the bombings took place there were a lot of different arguments that will be discussed in this paper. These events took place on August 6, 1945, and August 9, 1945, and about 225,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many individuals have shared their opinions stating why they are for or against the bomb.

The use of the atomic bomb the U.S used against Japan was Unjustified. The U.S had several other alternatives to solve the conflict between the two countries. Furthermore, the bomb was strongly racially motivated and had many inhumane side-effects to the dangerous explosion when the blast had hit Japan. Before resorting to using the bomb the U.S should have considered the many options they had at hand.

America’s use of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities also opened the door to other countries challenging them through their own use of nuclear bombs. Many have criticized that the atomic bomb was an act of “muscle flexing” due to the sheer power and destruction caused by the decision to drop the two bombs. (Nicholls, 67). Not only were these bombs a demonstration of the power that these nuclear weapons had, but they were a testament of power that the United States now held. Never before had a country surrendered in war without first being invaded, so the decision to drop the bomb and Japan's subsequent surrender were extremely significant (Baldwin, 39). These bombings didn’t just impact the Japanese, but the whole world and gave way to

The death of thousands in a moment, this was the power of the weapon the United States held in their possession. It was nearly the end of World War II. With Germany defeated and the Allied Forces ready for the cease-fire, only the Axis power of Japan stood in the way of the end of the World War. Worried about Nazi Germany’s technological advances earlier in the war, the United States began to research atomic energy and the possibility of creating an atomic bomb (Walker 10). When the bombs were created, the arguments for and against the use of it were gruesome, lengthy, and all understandable in some way. During the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, President Harry S. Truman and his fellow politicians had to consider the ethical

On August 8th 1945 the first atomic weapon, a fission bomb, was dropped on the city of Hiroshima in an attempt to force the Japanese to surrender in World War II (Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 2009). This event exposed the danger of nuclear energy. This massive explosion demolished 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people. This was only the beginning though, tens of thousands of innocent people died due to the aftermath of radiation exposure for another generation (Rosenberg, n.d). This day marks one of the most controversial in history. While some argue that Truman’s decision to drop the bomb was in America’s best interest, others question the ethics of dropping the most destructive weapon in the history of war on a city filled with innocent civilians (Pavlik 1995).

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.

Throughout the course of history, scientific discoveries have led to the birth of new knowledge. Humanity’s increase in knowledge has helped to achieve new heights of understanding in a variety of fields such as medicine, nuclear power, and nuclear weapons. While some of these achievements in science can generate much prosperity, some technology has created significant amounts of controversy. The Honors 2400 class entitled The Chernobyl Incident has granted me over the course of the semester the opportunity to analyze these scenarios and understand the challenging questions that are associated with the pursuit of knowledge. From many examples discussed in class, I understand the importance of limiting knowledge, the discoveries that humanity should or should not pursue, how individuals pursue confined questions, and who is ultimately responsible for approving or disapproving of these scientific questions.