The Nuclear Attack On Nagasaki

He faced many important challenges and decisions. The war in Europe ended when Germany surrendered on May 8th. The United Nations signed a charter. Roosevelt participated in the Potsdam Conference to discuss treatment after the war with Churchill and Stalin. Soon after this, President Roosevelt passed away and Truman took office. In order to end the war in the Pacific and prevent the loads U.S. casualties that would happen from an invasion of Japan, Truman approved the dropping of atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan surrendered, however, Truman’s atomic bomb was one of the most controversial decisions of any American

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.

Although WW II ended over 50 years ago there is still much discussion as to the events which ended the War in the Pacific. The primary event which historians attribute to this end are the use of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although the bombing of these cities did force the Japanese to surrender, many people today ask "Was the use of the atomic bomb necessary to end the war?" and more importantly "Why was the decision to use the bomb made?" Ronald Takaki examines these questions in his book Hiroshima.

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.

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.

Inventions have been accomplished due to the vast technology that is in place. Technology has led to the advancement of warfare in most parts of the world. The same technology has resulted in inventions that range from gunpowder to the atom that is splitting the environments across the borders. These inventions have led to some countries being able to leap over other weaker countries when it comes to war. Among all these inventions, the atomic bomb stands out as the most lethal weapon. The splitting atom has launched the whole world through its conventional warfare that led the world to change their perspectives to ushering in a new era of the nuclear age. The world atomic bomb is so vivid to the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (Madaras 99). When one mentions these two places and the splitting atom, a person is able to picture a city that was torn apart and the masses of people that were killed by the United States ' actions of using the bomb in these two cities. Thus, this paper tries to examine if it was necessary for the United States to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to bring an end to World War II.

On the clear morning of August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan, the world was hit with a total shock, that went down in history as a day for the history books. This day, the city of Hiroshima was blasted by the world’s first atomic bomb, which sent the grounds quaking, and leaving thousands dead. The debates for years since the bombing were having us all wonder if the attack was a military necessity or not. Considering both sides of the argument, it is clear to me that the bombing was the best plan for ending the world war. The use of the bomb saved more lives than it took.

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.

On August 15th Japan surrendered, and on September 2nd, 1945 they signed the “Instrument of Surrender”. Hospitals were filled with patients who had not seemed sick before. People vomited, bled from their gums, and spots had begun to appear on their skin. Later Japanese doctors discovered that the people were dying from radiation that came from the atomic bomb. {look up: conspiracy theory} When considering using the atomic bombs, President Truman took into account the lowest possible cost for ending the war, he also wanted to end the war quickly. Truman once stated, “When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.” After the Pearl Harbor invasion. The U.S. started with “Operation Downfall,” invading Kyushu, many casualties where estimated, but this war proved to be even more deadly than predicted. General MacArthur thought that dropping more bombs, and using air power by itself would protect American lives, while also bringing forth a quicker surrender from the Japanese. When I look at both sides of the 1945 Japan bombing I really tried to stay open about the different viewpoints. The fact that the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands crippled Japan was interesting to find. I felt that the Japanese did not want to compromise, and in some way bit the hands that fed them. It seems these allies had allot of power. The Japanese seemed to only

Before the United States dropped the bomb, they allowed Japan a chance to surrender. On July 26, 1945, the allies issued the Potsdam Declaration. This treaty was meant to make Japan surrender without a war. This was a warning that Japan will undergo harsh and utter destruction if they refused the declaration. Two days later Japan stated that they were going to ignore the Potsdam Declaration (“Was the Atomic Bombing”).

Hiroshima is an outstanding recreation of the complete annihilation and devastation of during the aftermath and the year following the United States’ dropping of the atomic bomb. As the war in the east carried on, many thought this desolated war might last a lifetime, all the while hoping for an end and praying it not mean their own end. To end the war, Americans had to pick a target that would leave the Japanese government with nowhere to retreat, allowing for a crippling effect that would essentially cause their collapse and surrender. In his writings, John Hersey proclaims that Hiroshima was a “… inviting target - mainly because it had been one of the most important military command and communications centres in Japan …” (HERSEY, P. 107). In the minds of American strategists, this must have seemed a flawless method to force the Japanese military into a corner, not allowing withdrawal without laying down of arms. There was surely no doubt that dropping this bomb of god-like destructive power would, at a minimum, tear into the souls of Japanese, causing catastrophic devastation.

This document, a written version of the Japanese Emperor’s radio address to announce his intention to surrender to the Allies in 1945, is valuable source when analyzing the necessity of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because it gives a more in-depth look at the Japanese perspective. Hearing Showa’s side of the war shows how the Japanese felt about the bombs and how necessary they were in the war as far as bringing about Japanese surrender.

By bombing Japan, many civilians were killed as a result of the U.S. 's desire to use a new weapon. Laurence describes the bomb as, "a thing of beauty to behold" and "Never before had so much brain power been focused on a single problem" (11). This demonstrated how the U.S. saw Japan as a problem that needed to be dealt with quickly and that the new and supposedly destructive weapon was the best choice. While the targets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were both production areas ,they were inhabited by a number of civilians. By choosing to drop the bomb, thousands were annihilated and any survivors began to suffer from radiation sickness shortly after. Because of its destruction, the U.S. believed the atomic bomb was a quick solution to the war.

Some regard the atomic bomb as “the thank God for the atom bomb”. This places God on the U.S. side and regards the bombs as our saving grace. This bomb forced the Japanese to surrender which in turn proved the U.S. to be the heroes who saved the American’s lives.1 The Americans intended on ending the war but did not expect to end it with such a large number of casualties. The results of the atomic bomb and how it effected the Japanese people both emotionally and physically will be addressed. “The bombs marked both an end and a beginning—the end of an appalling global conflagration in which more than 50 million people were killed and the beginning of the nuclear arms race and a new world in which

This investigation will explore the question: To what extent was the nuclear bombing of Japan necessary to end World War II? The years 1940 to 1950 will be the focus of this investigation, to allow for an analysis of the circumstances during the war and commentary of the decision to drop the bomb after the war ended.