The Pros And Cons Of The US Conventional Bombing Of Japan

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.

My personal opinion on the matter is that we should not have bomb the cities, there could have been different steps taken so that so many innocent lives could have been saved. We, the U.S., destroyed two entire cities when we should have just finished off thier navy forces that were already weakened at that time. With this research I had to do I can see the other peoples point of view now though, and how they felt it was justified. If I was in that time, I would probably be the one rejoice about the news, and how we got the revenge for Pearl Harbor. I can also see what people think Truman’s thought process was, but there could have been a different way to end the war just as quickly without the casualties.

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

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.

Some say the decision was moral and some say it was immoral. The people who think the bombing was immoral was because they think that the atomic bomb is the last thing for destruction on God’s scale. It is immoral to God’s creation of mankind. As the author of Nippon Times (Tokyo) said, a nuclear bomb “strikes at the very basis of moral existence” (Document 4). The author said that it is ethically wrong to bomb innocent humans and destroy mankind. But although the Japanese had to face poor conditions, the American lives were saved by President Truman. The decision was indeed justified on the United States standpoint but unfortunately the decision was immoral on the Japanese

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

Furthermore, if the true intention for the use of bombings was to end the war quicker as declared by the President Truman, then the war could really have ended months earlier without the bombs. This is because, in January 1945, General Douglas MacArthur informed President Roosevelt that the Japanese had offered peace overtures to end the war (Trohan, 1986, as cited in Weber, 1997). The terms were virtually similar to the Potsdam Declaration, but, with emphasis that the Emperor must not be touched. The Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested (Weber, 1997). I believe that if the U.S. had not insisted on unconditional surrender and was willing to permit the Emperor to remain in place; the end of the war could have been brought forward as the Japanese would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many innocent civilians.

Had he chosen a different alternative , the world as we know it today might not have been the same and the balance of powers of the world would be extremely different. “The losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki assuredly were horrific, but they pale when compared to the estimates of 17 to 24 million deaths attributed to the Japanese during their rampage from Manchuria to New Guinea. The historian Gavan Daws accurately described "Asia under the Japanese" as "a charnel house of atrocities." During the months of war following the attack on Pearl Harbor, reliable estimates establish that between 200,000 to 300,000 people died each month either directly or indirectly at Japanese hands. The historian Robert Newman tellingly reveals that "the last months were in many ways the worst; starvation and disease aggravated the usual beatings, beheadings and battle deaths. It is plausible to hold that upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners, would have died each month the Japanese Empire struggled in its death throes beyond July 1945." (Yes: Truman’s Simple Decision). It was clear that the Japanese war machine had to be stopped, the atomic bomb was the fastest way to draw the war to a close and prevent the deaths of thousands of Americans. While the instantaneous destruction of entire cities and their occupants is without a doubt horrendous, It was the by far the best of a multitude of other

“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.

This essay we will be discussing the pros and the cons of President Truman’s ethical decision to drop the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There were many people against dropping the bomb on Japan as well as people in favor of bombing. I believe that President Truman made the correct decision when bombing the country of Japan. President Truman had to make decisions based on what would be right for the people of the United States and what is also helpful to the United States military. There were many decisions that were deemed either ethical or unethical made by President Truman going into the dropping of the atomic bomb.

Overall the decision to bomb Japan was the right decision. It saved many American and Japanese lives, ended the war quickly, and allowed America to get its revenge on Japan from what happened at Pearl

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

“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

To my belief the two biggest issues that play a role in making and educated on wether to drop the bomb or not, would be time and money. The U.S. had already spent billions of dollars making these bombs, and couldnt afford to waste anymore money on the war. Sending troops to invade would have cost the U.S. alot of money that they didnt have, mind you they still were facing the great deppression. Not to mention the time that had gone into making these intricate atomic bombs, and the time that had already been wasted fighting the war. The war lasted about six years and could have been longer if Truman hadnt dropped the bomb because of the Japanese ethics and warfare perspective.

The decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the hardest decision for President Truman to make. He had the power right there in his hands to end the war but he would have to unleash the most powerful weapon known to man, at this time. Everyone was very tired of fighting but the Japanese would not give up so Truman decided to drop it. Even though we told Japan that if they did not surrender we would completely demolish some of their cities, they did not listen and they did not surrender. Maybe they did not think about what kind of weapons we would use because