The Pros And Cons Of The Atomic Bomb

Was the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the American Government unavoidably necessary? This is what Samuel J. Walker intends to uncover in his publication. His argument is that the justifications made by the American Government after the dropping of the Atomic bombs were gross exaggerations and that the reasoning behind their ultimate decision is complicated. He contends that because of their lack of knowledge of the actual damage that the force of the

However, it is difficult to make a case for the ethics in the use of the atomic bombing of Japan. Although it may have been needed to end the war, war, in any manner, is never ethical and all those innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not have died.

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.

One major argument for the use of the atomic bomb was that it would save thousands, if not, millions of U.S. and Japanese lives. With a U.S. invasion set for November of 1945, it was predicted that nearly a million U.S. soldiers would be lost, and the entire population of Japan’s main inland would suffer causalities. We believed that thousands of civilian lives were worth our own. The sacrifice of these individuals was worth it all. Where does morality come into play? How does one decide what lives matter and which ones do not? I believe that the atomic bomb was inhumane, more so for the long-term environmental, social, and health effects which took place.

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.

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 United States dropped the atomic bombs on Japan during World War II, yet the controversy about the validity of this decision continues in scientific, political and general public circles. Most likely, due to the complexity of the issue and never knowing the outcome if the bombs were not dropped, it will remain unresolved. A lesson that is continually learned in the U.S.-once again in present times-is the importance of acting from facts and not from emotion. It is hoped that all pros and cons are very seriously weighed before any action is taken if and when such a serious decision must be made in the future.

In August of 1945, two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, consequently, killing tens of thousands of civilians due to radiation, burns, or turning them immediately into ash. The monstrous bomb sneaks up on innocent civilians and rips their life from them in one foul swoop. The Atomic bomb kills masses of people at one time, but can also save masses of people’s lives from the ongoing war. Herein lies the conflict, since the nuclear bomb is extremely lethal, but effective, should it be used in war? Do you believe that this act was ethical? The atomic bomb should have never been used in past wars and should never be used today because its deadly side effects.

Intense moral justification was needed in order to make the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki however, President Truman was ultimately the man who made the final decision to launch ‘Little Boy’ and destroy Hiroshima, Nagasaki and their civilians, thus forcing an end to the war. Although there were many alternatives presented to President Truman, it is unknown as to whether they would have actually succeeded in ending the war or producing less casualties. Truman made the decision to drop these bombs in the heat of war but his justification of having a military target appeared extremely unrealistic, as both cities were full of innocent civilians. The morality of the bombs have been debated over the years, however the publication of the actual damage to civilian life caused a strong voice opposed to the usage in the 60 years following the action.

On August 6th, 1945, the first atomic bomb to ever be used in the history of the world was dropped on Hiroshima. The result of this bomb killed roughly 80,000 people from the blast itself, and tens of thousands more due to radiation poisoning. After a few days passed, the United States dropped another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, and threatened to drop another if the Japanese did not surrender. The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to the Japanese surrender to the United States, removing them from the war. While the use of this bomb was likely necessary at the time, was it an ethical decision? The lives that were affected from this blast were not just of those who experienced it, generations later, people who weren’t even alive at the time were faced with trauma as well. With that being said, the dropping of the bomb might have been necessary, but it was an unethical decision, even though the Japanese made it perfectly clear that they will fight until the last civilian.

“Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President,” (ushistory.org 1). President Truman and the United States government made a fair decision by dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese citizens in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during 1945. The bomb allowed the United States to appear more powerful and led to them influencing the rest of the world. The dropping of the atomic bomb was also a just response to the previous atrocities committed by Japan to other countries including the United States. In the long run, the bomb saved more lives that would have been lost in the war, since the bombs caused the

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

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.

Although the atomic bomb was a new and quick solution to the war, the U.S. could have chosen other options to finish it. As a result of bombings

However, it is difficult to make a case for the ethics in the use of the atomic bombing of Japan. Although it may have been needed to end the war, war, in any manner, is never ethical and all those innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not have died.