The Dropping Of The Atomic Bomb On Japan

In August 1945, America dropped two Atomic bombs on Japan in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two bombings killed at least 130,000 people and were the first and last use of nuclear weapons in warfare.

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.

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.

On May 1945, a long-awaited V-E Day finally came and brought an end to the war in Europe. But, the war in the Pacific was still continuing against Japan since they are being reluctant to surrender despite the continuous indiscriminate bombardments The United States began to consider about using the atomic bombs as the only way to end the war immediately. On the other hand, many argued that Japan’s staggering losses were enough to force Japan’s surrender. In the end, President Harry S. Truman didn’t hesitate to use this nuclear weapon and bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with only three days interval between the two bombing. As a result, Japan has surrendered, but if I were to make a decision, I haven’t used atomic bombs because it was unnecessary since Japan has virtually lost already.

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.

President Truman’s Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, argued in Document 2 that Japan was ready to surrender before the “barbarous” atomic bomb was dropped. Admiral Leahy compared the act of dropping the bomb to the standards of the Dark Ages, and said wars “cannot be won by destroying women and children.” The author in Document 4 reaffirmed Admiral Leahy’s statement by saying that the use of this bomb threatened the notion of morality. He asserted that both “international law,” and the “concept of right and wrong” are meaningless if governments can so easily choose to “annihilate” such a large amount of people with “one stroke.” Document 6 gives an eyewitness account which describes the devastation and aftermath of the bombing.

The research question of this essay is “To what extent was the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of the Second World War Justified? In 1945, the United States authorized the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first bomb, dropped on August 6th 1945, had a total casualty rate of 135,000, including non-combatant civilians, and as this, the atomic bombing of Japan at the end of the Second World War has indeed been a hugely discussed topic within academic and social circles until today. There have been historians, academics, and other influential individuals throughout the world who have argued on both sides of the spectrum regarding the effects of the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and whether they were necessary and justified towards the ending of the conflict. According to the Center For Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), by 1944, it had become clear to both the United States and the Empire of Japan that Japan was indeed losing the war, and as this, there are many arguments and counterarguments regarding the effectiveness of the atomic bombing of Japan, as well as suggestions regarding alternatives due to the enormous human toll the bomb caused.

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.

Thesis: The dropping of the atomic bomb during World War II by the United States on Japan was a justified act. Not only was the dropping of the atomic bomb used to save American lives, but it prevented the war from lingering on, taking the lives of more civilians. The bomb did not just make sense, but it saved lives, despite taking some, therefore making the atomic bomb a reasonable action. It is not war mentality to think of preserving the lives of innocent people when the safety of the world is at stake. World War II, taking place in Japan, was likely to continue to linger on which would produce more deaths in the long run. In a book entitled, Thank God for the Atomic Bomb, by WWII soldier, Paul Fussell, he noted that "The people who preferred an invasion to a bombing seemed to have no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves. I have already noted what a few more days would mean to the luckless troops and sailors on the spot....on Okinawa, only a few weeks before Hiroshima, 123,000 Japanese and Americans killed each other. War is immoral. War is cruel". By saying this it proves that although dropping the atomic bomb had some consequences, not dropping it, and letting the war carry on had far worse outcomes, and those who did want an invasion were not willing to go fight for it, again proving the high demand for the wars end. Then, in a speech made by President Truman he explains, "My chief

President Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan during the Second World War is the most controversial decision in history. While it was an undoubtedly difficult decision, it was indeed necessary in order to end this six-year war that had ravaged the world. While many critics argue that the bomb was used primarily as an act of vengeance toward Japan, simplifying such a crucial moment in human history downplays the very real risk invading Japan posed to the United States. While avoiding strained relations with the other Allied countries, Truman had to assess the possible danger of the Soviet Union in a post-war world. Furthermore, the possibility of an arms race, the moral implications of using this

On August 7, 1945 the headline of the front page of the New York Times read: First Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan; Missile is Equal to 20,000 Tons of TNT: Truman Warns Foe of a “Rain of Ruin.”1 Now the debate between historians on the question of whether Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb was correct or not had begun.

decision to bomb Japan was mainly focused on Truman's confrontational approach to the Soviet Union.”Moreover, this subject is thought to be more appropriately thought as a side benefit of dropping the bomb and not so much its sole purpose.

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

While the facts of Truman’s decision to drop the bombs have been evaluated time and time again, just as public opinion regarding the bombs has evolved over time, so has the context in which the history of the event must be evaluated. While historians of generations past may simply have examined Truman’s rationale for dropping the bomb, those who continue to be intrigued by the issue demand an explanation in-tune with current sentiment regarding the bomb drop. They require a full-scale examination of the many complex legal and moral facets of the issue. Thus, this paper strives to give them what they desire: initially, an in-depth investigation into the evidence available for President Truman in making his decision to drop the bomb; second, a discussion of universal wartime morality, its implications on World War II and the bomb drop, and a look at how the concept of total war may have reshaped the laws of war; third, an evaluation of the atomic bombing with regards to international law; and finally, a look at the bombing through the Presidential powers enumerated in the United States Constitution. These key facets of the issue will provide readers with a comprehensive examination of the bomb drop issue that attempts to reevaluate the validity

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