Truman 's Greatest Moral Dilemma

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 brutal and deadly Pacific Theater of World War ll, President Truman had to make a crucial decision on whether or not to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. Some believe that Truman’s actions to drop the atomic bomb were unethical and inhumane; however, Truman was justified in his decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan due to the fact that they are our enemy, saving American lives is the first priority, and the atomic bomb will ultimately prevent Russia from gaining control of Asia.

The necessity of the atomic bombs have long been debated in America. Although they did contribute to stopping the war, Americans still wonder if murdering Japanese civilians was a necessary means to an end, or if it could have been avoided. Some people believe that the war would have ended without using the bombs. Others believe they were the sole purpose that the war finally ended. Many people were involved with bringing the bombs to fruition, such as the scientists, the government and military leaders, and the very teams that flew them to their targets. Then the President addressed the situation and American citizens spoke their minds. All of these people had their own thoughts on whether the bombs were needed. In this essay, the opinions on the atomic bomb’s necessity will be reviewed by presenting both the pros and cons from a variety of sources.

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.

On May 1945, a long-awaited V-E Day finally came and brought an end to the war in Europe. But, the war in the Pacific was still continuing against Japan since they are being reluctant to surrender despite the continuous indiscriminate bombardments The United States began to consider about using the atomic bombs as the only way to end the war immediately. On the other hand, many argued that Japan’s staggering losses were enough to force Japan’s surrender. In the end, President Harry S. Truman didn’t hesitate to use this nuclear weapon and bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with only three days interval between the two bombing. As a result, Japan has surrendered, but if I were to make a decision, I haven’t used atomic bombs because it was unnecessary since Japan has virtually lost already.

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.

Did we make the right decision in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan during WWII? Till this day ordinary citizens and commanders question if the bombing was ethical. The utilitarian approach supports the argument considering without the bombs millions of lives would’ve been at risk. However, dropping the atomic bombs kept the deaths significantly lower on both sides. I believe the right decision was to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. I’m briefly going to talk about why Truman decided to drop the bomb, why there wasn’t another alternative, and what some felt after the bombing.

President Truman felt after weighing the outcomes of what else could have been done, he chose the most effective one. In my opinion, he chose the right way to use the atomic weapon. He had to think about his people over the enemy’s citizens. Truman did his best to not harm a well-known

Thesis: The dropping of the atomic bomb during World War II by the United States on Japan was a justified act. Not only was the dropping of the atomic bomb used to save American lives, but it prevented the war from lingering on, taking the lives of more civilians. The bomb did not just make sense, but it saved lives, despite taking some, therefore making the atomic bomb a reasonable action. It is not war mentality to think of preserving the lives of innocent people when the safety of the world is at stake. World War II, taking place in Japan, was likely to continue to linger on which would produce more deaths in the long run. In a book entitled, Thank God for the Atomic Bomb, by WWII soldier, Paul Fussell, he noted that "The people who preferred an invasion to a bombing seemed to have no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves. I have already noted what a few more days would mean to the luckless troops and sailors on the spot....on Okinawa, only a few weeks before Hiroshima, 123,000 Japanese and Americans killed each other. War is immoral. War is cruel". By saying this it proves that although dropping the atomic bomb had some consequences, not dropping it, and letting the war carry on had far worse outcomes, and those who did want an invasion were not willing to go fight for it, again proving the high demand for the wars end. Then, in a speech made by President Truman he explains, "My chief

Henry L. Stimson was a secretary of war under both Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. He believed that as long as the Japanese government refused to surrender then the U.S. should be obligated to use whatever means necessary to win the war (“The Atomic Bomb,” 52). The atomic bomb allowed the U.S. to put an end to a never-ending war with fewer casualties than if the war went to a ground fight. War is brutal. It is destructive and unforgiving no matter what the means, killing lives is killing lives. Using the atomic bomb, the United States was able to end the war quickly and with minimal lost American lives.

President Harry S. Truman established that the United States would provide political, military and economic assistance to all democratic nations under threat from external or internal forces from the axis powers. The Truman Doctrine completely altered U.S. foreign policy, away from its usual stance of withdrawal from regional conflicts not directly involving the United States, to one of possible intervention in far away conflicts. The Truman Doctrine was based from a speech delivered by President Truman on March 12, 1947. The immediate cause for the speech was a recent announcement by the British Government that, as of March 31, it would no longer provide military and economic assistance to the Greek Government in its civil war against the

This investigation assesses President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will determine whether or not his decision was justified. This investigation will scrutinize the reasons that made Harry Truman feel inclined to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Preventing further casualties along with the desire to end the war are two argumentative points that will be analyzed to determine if they were strong enough to justify the dropping

On August 6, 1945, following the attacks on Pearl Harbor the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan purposely in the means to end the war relatively quickly saving countless lives of American citizens. In the Truman Presidency, many began to question if the president made the right call on the use of the atomic bombs. In this case where a plethora of lives were lost in the Pearl Harbor attack America was indeed in need of a solution that would end the war. The decision President Truman made on the atomic bombs was right in the idea that many more lives could have been at risk in later events if the Japanese hadn’t surrendered when they did. In fact, if the Truman Administration would have waited on ta decision to respond

While the facts of Truman’s decision to drop the bombs have been evaluated time and time again, just as public opinion regarding the bombs has evolved over time, so has the context in which the history of the event must be evaluated. While historians of generations past may simply have examined Truman’s rationale for dropping the bomb, those who continue to be intrigued by the issue demand an explanation in-tune with current sentiment regarding the bomb drop. They require a full-scale examination of the many complex legal and moral facets of the issue. Thus, this paper strives to give them what they desire: initially, an in-depth investigation into the evidence available for President Truman in making his decision to drop the bomb; second, a discussion of universal wartime morality, its implications on World War II and the bomb drop, and a look at how the concept of total war may have reshaped the laws of war; third, an evaluation of the atomic bombing with regards to international law; and finally, a look at the bombing through the Presidential powers enumerated in the United States Constitution. These key facets of the issue will provide readers with a comprehensive examination of the bomb drop issue that attempts to reevaluate the validity

President Truman made the right decision when choosing to use the atomic bomb against Japan. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bomb prevented the deaths of many American lives. It proclaimed that if the Americans were to invade Japan on foot, over 500,000 casualties would have taken place (atom central). The atomic bomb was an easy and fast way to force Japan to surrender to the allied powers. Any of the other options to help the forcing of Japan's surrender were not as efficient and quick (J. Samuel Walker). Lastly, the atomic bomb was the most promising way to end the war; and allowed America to seek revenge for Pearl Harbor and save American soldiers from high death casualties. The atomic bomb prevented the deaths of thousands American lives as over 100,000 thousand had already been taken by fighting Japan in the Pacific (J. Samuel Walker). As an estimated number of deaths if we invaded Mainland Japan, the total would have been more than 500,000 men. This would have been