The Pros And Cons Of Bombing Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki

The process of this investigation has revealed to me, the significance of different methods and limitations that historians experience when carrying out studies. When researching past history, authors are able to use hindsight to either enhance or hinder their writing. This was evident through the use of my secondary sources, particularly the analysis of the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima by Taketo Suzuki. I was introduced to the difficulty of gaining accurate and reliable information on an event that is certainly open to question. Since Suzuki is a part of Japan’s Research Center, there are a plethora of sources that are available to him. Although this may seem as great benefit, the challenge comes from careful fact selection.

World War II lasted for six years from September,1 1939 to September 2, 1945 and resulted with Japan's surrender but believe it or not many events occurred both good and bad before anyone could make that choice. Before the declaration of this war japan had made an agreement with the U.S in which they gave them a friendship medal signifying peace. Turns out that wasn't the case japan actually backstabbed the U.S and on the morning of December 7th, 1941 the japanese attacked Pearl Harbor destroying nearly 20 American ships and more than 300 airplanes. About 2,403 sailors, soldiers and civilians were killed and about 1,000 people were wounded. After that the U.S could no longer trust Japan for many reasons they decided to fight back with two atomic bombs on Japan. The dropping of these two bombs on that country in my personal opinion is not justified. My reasons are that this was the first time the U.S was going to try these bombs out so in other words this was an experiment in which they had no clue the amount of damage that

Whether the use of the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II was justified, we will never know. However, the amount of time spent on discussing the use and effect of the bomb seems to be nonexistent. If they talked about the bomb there was no major argument against using the bomb; with that came mystery because they did not understand the bomb. There were factors that they used as an excuse to use the bomb, but these were in the background and later added to make the argument seem more one-sided, in their favor. Whether the use of the atomic bomb proved helpful or not is up to debate. The atomic bomb changed the world, and given the evidence, the use of the bomb was not talked about in detail except for when and where to use it.

On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. To this day there is controversy on whether the U.S. should have risked the lives of hundreds of thousands of people to win the second world war. The U.S. Should have considered other options before dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. There were many alternative actions that could have taken place instead of dropping the bomb, but President Truman decided that using it was the best way to get the Japanese to surrender. If he would have chosen differently, the world would be a different place today.

Ray Bradbury once said, “After Hiroshima was bombed, I saw a photograph of the side of a house with shadows of the people who had lived there burned into the wall from the intensity of the bomb. The people were gone, but their shadows remained.” Keep in mind that quote only described the intensity of “Little Boy”, the nickname for the bomb that devastated Hiroshima. The bombs that dilapidated both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were harrowing, gruesome, and in all sincerity, needless. The reasoning people have given to justify the bombings was because it was a military necessity; they thought the atom bombs were needed to save lives and to end the war quickly. However, the Merriam-Webster dictionary explicitly defines a ‘military necessity’ as “the necessity attending belligerent military operations that is held to justify all measures necessary to bring an enemy to complete submission excluding those (as cruelty, torture, poison, perfidy, wanton destruction) that are forbidden by modern laws and customs of war.” According to this interpretation of a ‘military necessity’, both of the bombings do not match this definition. Various people wonder why the U.S. would condone the use of the explosives and inflict such destruction on others, considering that they had first hand experiences on devastating attacks that seemed gratuitous. Many have argued that there were multiple alternatives to such a catastrophe, and the bombs did not have to be utilized. Others state that the bombings were

“The city was hidden by that awful cloud . . . boiling up, mushrooming, terrible and incredibly tall," said Colonel Paul Tibbets, pilot of the modified B-29 bomber that dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The bombings resulted in the death of thousands, including not only Japanese citizens, forces, and military but also American captive soldiers. In the midst of World War II the United States forced Japan to surrender by dropping bombs in the major cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They released the second atomic bomb shortly after, in Nagasaki, Japan.

People always wonder if the United States decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan were the right choice. Even though the bombs killed and injured many people, Japanese civilians and Japanese soldiers. The decision to drop the bombs on Japan was the right thing to do at that time.

The United States absolutely did the right thing when they dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If they had decided to do a land invasion the death toll would be much higher than the victims of the two bombs, with much more catastrophe. There is a lot of evidence that conveys the many pros of dropping the bomb instead of a land invasion.

The atomic bombing of Japan was not a military necessity, in order to save lives of thousands of americans and get japan to surrender. The bomb was a nuclear weapon which had long term effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The weapon was radioactive and created mass destruction, it was a cruel weapon to use against other human beings. The definition of military necessity is to do whatever is necessary in order to bring an enemy to submission excluding the use of cruelty, torture, and poison; the atomic bomb contradicts the meaning of military necessity, so I think it was not a military necessity. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary, since even before the bombing, japan was already weak and would have surrendered anyways to the united states.

The dropping of the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiable. The Emperor of Japan, Emperor hirohito would have never have accepted to surrender. Another reason is that Japan had killed a lot of people during Pearl Harbor. Overall the bombing’s actually saved both lives the Americans and Japanese due to the bombing of Japan it ended WW2 overall. In 1945, so that's when Japan leaders knew they were not going to win WW2.

Mr. President, upon your request, I have analyzed and researched the war effort against Japan and I have come up with what I believe to be the best possible recommendation. As you well know, your predecessor President Roosevelt initiated the Manhattan Project in 1943, the year after our scientists were about to successfully about produce a self-sustaining controlled nuclear reaction. Since then the atomic bomb has been successfully be tested in Trinity and, if used in the war, is expected to create 250,000 casualties. Naturally, a weapon with this kind of potential would create significant debate in Congress. Currently the Secretary of State urges us to deploy the atomic bomb in order to reduce long-term casualties. On the other spectrum, the Under-Secretary of State, an expert on Japanese diplomacy, is a strong voice against the use of the bomb. As the debate continues, we continue to experience three threats: potential soviet expansion, a nuclear arms race, and our alarming high casualty rate.

At about eight A.M on August sixth, 1945 the Japanese city Hiroshima was destroyed by the deployment of the first nuclear weapon, nicknamed “Little Boy.” Soon after, at about eleven A.M the following day, a second bomb was dropped, called “Fat Man” on Nagasaki. Together, these bombings caused massive destruction. The death total was well near 220, 000. Only portions of these deaths were from the days of the bombings, with an equal number occurring later in the year from exposure to radiation. More have died since from leukemia.

This is one of the many arguments meant to support the bombing of Hiroshima. The conclusion of the argument is obvious- The nuclear bomb should be used against Hiroshima. What is the rest of the argument? Are there any premises missing from this paragraph? Why or why not?

On the 6th November 1945, a United States bomber flies over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The only cargo aboard that B-29 bomber was an atomic bomb waiting on its target. At 8.15am the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, taking 140,000 lives with it. Most of the 140,000 died instantly, horrifyingly the rest of the innocent civilians that were not in direct contact with the bomb died painful deaths in the four months following. They died from radiation sickness and different types of cancers.

This developed into a race to see which nation could build the first nuclear weapon. The weapon that the United States manufactured was first used on the Japanese at Hiroshima, and then two days later at Nagasaki. The potential of this weapon was frightening. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970, the Atomic bomb was banned from use by all countries except the United States, Russia, China, France, and United Kingdom because of the global aftereffects of this terrifying weapon. Nuclear warfare produced the most heinous aftereffects of any previous type of warfare (Walker). The blast of a nuclear weapon is powerful. It may cause third degree thermal burns, produces enough pressure to bend heavy steel girders to a 90-degree angle, and turns the entire blast radius into a firestorm. The people who have survived the blast will still experience a lifetime of side effects. Some of these might be genetically linked to future generations. The intensity and brightness of the blast may cause symptoms like keloid formation and retinal blastoma in humans. The sediment, or fallout, from the mushroom-like cloud,produced by the explosion, will be highly radioactive. The nuclear blast and its consequential fallout will affect