The Pros And Cons Of The Atomic Bomb

The purposeful bombing of civilians as a wartime strategy has oftentimes been used to bring about the end of a war, but controversy has sparked up about the ethicality of this practice because of its mass destruction of human lives. This tactic goes against human nature’s aversion to intentionally cause harm without a reasonable basis. Is the bombing of innocent people justified if it ultimately brings an end to the war? This ethical question arises when considering the issue of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

The first reason for the dropping of the Atomic bombs not being justified is that dropping the bomb was caused by racial motivation. I believe this to be the case because throughout America there was widespread racism towards Japanese-Americans. They would be rounded up and put into to isolation camps in the desert. This can be compared to Nazi Germany’s anti Semitist actions towards Jews by putting them in concentration camps. Japanese immigrants couldn’t get jobs and their children were treated poorly as Americans didn’t want to be associated with “yellow people”.

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.

In the 1930’s and the 1940’s there was a change in American leadership. Having this change not only changed the outcome of the war that we were currently in, but how the rest of the world would view our country after the war. The decision that Harry Truman was forced to make on the choice to drop the atomic bomb or to attempt more land invasions was a choice that shaped the outcome of the war. There were major influences and side effects from the dropping of the atomic bomb and what it did to the country of Japan. Having the option and the weight of the moral decision weighing on Truman’s shoulders about what decision should be made, he was the only one who was capable of making the decision that shaped the outcome of the war. Having dropped the bomb on Japan, as a statement of power and a means to an end in a form was the only way that American lives could have been spared as comparing that to the lives that would have been lost in a land invasion. Knowing what the issues with the bomb was; one has to look at the moral issues, the results of the incident, and also how it played in the rest of the development of the world.

Was it necessary for Truman to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan in World War II? On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped by a US aircraft on Hiroshima. This atomic bomb was dropped to force Japan into surrender, this bomb alone destroyed Hiroshima and over 90,000 people were instantly killed in the explosion and an additional 100,000 people perished from burns and radiation sickness. On August 9, 1945 only three days later, the second atomic bomb was dropped over Nagasaki resulting in an additional 80,000 casualties of the Japanese population. The people of Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945 soon after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many people opposed to the use of the atomic bombs because people argued that Truman 's decision to use atomic bombs was a barbaric act of cruelty. People also argued that the US government had other ulterior motives to drop the atomic bomb that were necessary for America 's ideals. Necessary motives like presenting The Soviet Union a strong message for the Soviets to watch their step around America. A conventional way of warfare for Japan 's surrender would have costed many more American lives. Truman and others believed that the atomic bomb was necessary to save American lives but also Japanese lives. These actions from President Truman marked the end of the most destructive war in history. The two sources that will used and evaluated in this paper are is The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb by Dennis D. Wainstock (1996)

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 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?

It is not clearly stated that racism had anything to do with the attacks, but there is evidence that the bombs were dropped because President Truman was not fond of the Japanese. In his July 25, 1945, diary entry, as Truman is writing about the bomb, he refers to the "Japs" as "savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic." On August 11, after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been devastated, an American clergyman named Samuel McCrea Cavert wrote the President urging him to give the Japanese time to surrender before using any more atomic

This thought brings me to my next motive of why Truman might have dropped the bomb. I do not think Truman was unaware of the lasting effects of the atom bomb, but by the time these facts were presented to him, piled upon facts about the actual bomb and the projects supporting them, it was to late to change his decision. He needed to save face for America (which brings me to the next motive of pressure) even if it public opinion was not his main concern. Truman did not want to look soft upon the Japanese, something further consideration and negation of the plan to bomb would have caused in some officials eye's. Also, Truman and much of the rest of the nation did not like seeing the U.S. as moral failures like many other nations. Who knows what the reaction to the President's decision would have been like if he had decided to let an invasion with hundreds and thousands of our men involved take place.

The U.S would often refer to the Japanese as big toothed, small-eyed, and would repeatedly call them rats. (Doc. E) Addition to the name calling they also created a video making out the Japanese as being ruthless and stronger than the Americans to Justify the use of the bomb. (Doc. F) When portraying the Japanese in the film they seemed more as ferocious animals rather than people. Does that not seem similar to a situation with the Jews and the

Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified under the information they had at the time. When criticizing the actions of the Truman administration one needs to consider the effect of knowledge in hindsight. Truman was working under the knowledge that dropping the nuclear bombs would bring a short and fast victory to the Pacific front of the Second World War. As the war had already ended in Europe by this time, leaders were looking to end the campaign in the Pacific as quickly as possible. From a cost benefit perspective dropping the bombs on Japan meant that very few American lives were lost, and the cost of building the bombs compared to the cost of a minimum six month continuation of fighting.Additionally, there was no testing

While Truman himself stated in an August 1945 radio address and further emphasized in his 1955 memoirs that the atomic bombs were dropped in order to “shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans” (Doc H), historians and government officials are split on the issue of the true motivations behind dropping the a-bombs. However, given his sour relationship with Stalin, it is clear that Truman intended the bomb to be used more than merely as an atomic weapon. When the Truman Administration made the decision to drop the atomic bombs, it was neither completely military or diplomatic. The decision was militaristic in that it tried to end the war with Japan in the most efficient manner possible, and was diplomatic in that it tried to prevent the Soviets from gaining too much

On August 6, 1945, the 33rd president of the United States, Harry S. Truman, made the executive decision to drop a 10,000 pound atomic bomb named “Little Boy” on the city of Hiroshima in Japan. Three days later, Truman ordered another atomic bomb, called “Fat Man” to be dropped on another Japanese city, Nagasaki. Each bomb had a blast radius of fifty miles. The decision to utilize these weapons of mass destruction will always be a very controversial topic because of the debated morality of the decision.

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the Atomic Bomb “Little Boy” on Hiroshima. On August 9, 1945, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb “Fat Man” on Nagasaki. The first bomb was dropped to scare the Japanese into surrendering when it didn’t work the second bomb was dropped causing destruction and the surrender of Japan. In a time of need and anguish, Harry S Truman made the courageous decision to drop the first atomic bombs on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The big question is whether America was justified in dropping the bombs and it was because it would help stop the war, save American lives, and avenge those who were sadly murdered or hurt in the process.