The Pros And Cons Of The Atomic Bomb

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.

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.

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

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

What if the world we lived in was no longer safe? The decision for the hydrogen brings in the possibility for safety to cease to exist at every corner of the world. Although there are many reasons why someone would say the hydrogen bomb should be created, it should not be. If created it would be able to cause even more mass destruction to civilization than the atomic bomb is, have unpredictable effects, and would change the nature of foreign policy.

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.

“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.

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.

The year was 1945. World War II was nearly over. Germany had been defeated and the allied forces were sure to win the war. The only unsure thing was how many lives would be lost in defeating Japan. The United States decided to drop the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. On that day the Enola Gay dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. Three days later the United States dropped "Fat Boy" on Nagasaki. 240,000 civilians, mostly women and children, lost their lives on these two days. On August 14, 1945 Japan surrendered unconditionally. Was it necessary?

Since Japan is a island it makes it harder to invade the country. Invading the country would take a lot of people. Instead of risking hundreds of thousands of American lives. The U.S. decided to do the smart thing by bombing Japan. Bombing Japan instead of trying to invade it saved many American lives and Japanese lives. The bombing was a quick solution besides a long, deadly fight between the U.S. and Japan.

On August 6, 1945 the United States deployed the first atomic bomb over Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once the United States dropped the atomic bomb there has been a lot of comments whether or not it was the right move to do. I believe that it was justified for the United States to drop the atomic bomb on Japan however, it did have some cons to it. The reason behind dropping the first atomic bomb was to stop the war. Although it roughly killed around 60,00 people in Hiroshima and 35,000 in Nagasaki. If they didn’t drop that bomb the war could have claimed more lives than the atomic bomb dropping.

The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was completely justified in both cause and impact. An intense weapon was necessary to force a quick Japanese surrender. The bomb saved thousands upon thousands of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost if the war continued or an invasion occurred. The bomb was the only way to end the suffering of the millions who were being held captive by the Japanese oppressor. The weapon of mass destruction also sent a powerful message to the shaky Soviet allies. The choice to use the atomic bomb was justified because it compelled a Japanese surrender, saved countless lives, served as retribution for the sufferings of many people, and

On August 6th, 1945 the very first atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. A second atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki a few days later. This was the largest attack a country had ever seen before and there were many different views on whether the bombs were necessary or not. Like any conflict, there were groups that were against dropping the bomb such as the Wall Street Journal and groups that were backing the decision to drop the bombs such as the New York Times. Each of these newspapers interpreted the bomb’s necessity to end the war, the way that the United States viewed the use of the atomic bomb, and the feelings of the public towards the atomic bomb very differently.

Today it is 2017 to judge the mind set of the people in 1945 by the standards of our modern day is not only ahistorical, it is worthless. President Truman and his advisors made the only logical decision they could’ve made, considered that it was of World War II, it wasn’t really much of a decision at all. There are usually three arguments marshalled against the dropping of the A-bomb in 1945. First, that the dropping of the A-bomb against Japan was racist; second, that the bomb made no difference; and lastly, that it was done just for political effect that had more to do with Stalin and the Soviet Union than with the war against the Japanese. These objections make little sense when put up against counterfactual thinking about American alternatives.

Not long after May 11, 1998 at Pokhran, a betray site in the Indian province of Rajasthan, gatherings of neighborhood Bishnoi herders—whose traditions prohibit murdering creatures or cutting trees—heard a gigantic blast, and viewed in astonishment as a colossal clean cloud coasted in the sky. What the Indian ranchers did not understand, but rather the representatives in Washington and around the globe soon got a handle on, was the way that India had quite recently joined the United States, Russia, England, France and China as the most up to date individual from the atomic club. On that warm May evening, Indian atomic researchers effectively detonated three nuclear gadgets adding up to around six times the ruinous energy of the American bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The following day, as the world endeavored to retain the alarming news, India touched off two more atomic blasts.