The Pros And Cons Of The Bombing Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki

The reason that the atomic bomb was considered to be very effective was because it had the capability to wipe out an entire city, including troops, men, women, and children. Would an act of this capacity be considered as moral? Scholars dispute the morality of Truman’s decision, some arguing it was warranted by Japan’s aggression and refusal to surrender, and other scholars suggesting that the assaults were the moral equivalent of the Nazi holocaust (109). I postulate that to annihilate an entire city of people in one fell swoop is something that neither man nor nation should be able to decide, even if they conceive the other party to be deserving of such a punishment in retribution for their actions.

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.

In my opinion, the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t justified because many innocent civilians were killed when the Americans were close to defeating the Japanese. Nonetheless, I do acknowledge that others may have a different opinion, because dropping the bomb ended the war and they freed prisoners of war.

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.

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

Aff: My first point is the events leading up to the bombing and the motives by all parties involved before the atomic bomb was dropped. I bet you are wondering how it is ethically justified to bomb a country? Well maybe if you heard the events leading up to the bombing you would agree. World war 2 started on 1st September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. (Smith, J 2017, Online) The United States were not even involved until the Japanese Military bombed Pearl Harbour in Hawaii on December 7th 1941. I mean if you think about it, the Japanese brought it on themselves by beginning this feud with the Unites states. This was the date that marked the official entrance of the US into the war. (Atomic Heritage Foundation 2014, online). That is why the atomic bomb started being created in 1941 by Franklin D Roosevelt who funded the project, persuaded by Albert Einstein.( CliffsNotes n.d., online) Also if the Japanese had just surrendered the bomb would not

The United States should not have dropped the atomic bomb because it was inhumane. By using that powerful bomb on japan lots of people died and lots of people lost their children, families, and it also ruined everything on their land so they can’t have access to anything. According to document ‘E,’ the evidence shows that it was hard for Japanese because they lost lots of people, 64,000 people total died from Nagasaki and 135,000 total died from Hiroshima which was terrifying. This evidence helps explain that the U.S. should not have dropped the atomic bomb because it took lives of civilians and innocent people.

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.

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

was fully justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because of the unprovoked and brutal attacks on civilians, grounded airplanes, and the docked U.S. Pacific fleet by the Japanese. By retaliating with the atomic bomb to end the war the United States showed the world the power and weapons of mass destruction that it possessed and that it was not afraid to use them. This also issued a warning to the Soviet Union, who at the time was our ally, but was slowly turning into an enemy. In addition to showing the world the United States power, the atomic bombs crushed Japan not just physically, but also morally giving them no other option, but to surrender. Japan was on the edge of surrender with a great amount of inner turmoil, but Japans military leaders had declared no surrender and ordered their people to fight to the death of the last man, woman, and child, so in using the atomic bomb we forced them to the breaking point and saved millions of lives. Without the dropping of the atomic bombs the U.S. would have invaded the Japanese homeland in Operation Downfall where a great slaughter would have ensued. Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were pre-made in anticipation of the invasion, but the atomic bombs saved this massive loss of life. The results brought about by the atomic bombs were very devastating and gruesome; they caused thousands of deaths and injuries and should not be employed except in the most dire

On the 6th and 9th of August, 1945, the United States of America dropped the Atomic Bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of these bombs brought a quick end to World War 2, yet caused extensive damage to the two Japanese cities. There have often been disputes as to whether the USA was justified in the dropping of the atomic bombs because of the damage they caused, not only to the cities, but to the people of Japan as well. Many people believe that the USA should not have dropped the bombs because of the damage they caused, and they also claim that Japan was already defeated. However, Japan did not surrender, and prolonging the war was not an option for America, as it believed it would cause even more casualties, not only to American troops, but to Japan as well. Thus the USA was justified in dropping the bombs on Japan.

The dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 by the Americans is a very controversial issue with no definite answer. Both sides of the issue have very justifiable arguments. Reasons for dropping the bomb include the fact that Truman’s options were limited at this point in the war, that the bomb did have the desired outcome of Japans surrender and that the majority of reasons America had for dropping the bomb are justifiable. On the other hand, the atomic bomb was complete new technology and there is no way that Japan could have possibly been ready for it and for that reason the dropping of the atomic bomb is very

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.