What Is Truman's Decision To Authorize The Atomic Bomb

Was the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the American Government unavoidably necessary? This is what Samuel J. Walker intends to uncover in his publication. His argument is that the justifications made by the American Government after the dropping of the Atomic bombs were gross exaggerations and that the reasoning behind their ultimate decision is complicated. He contends that because of their lack of knowledge of the actual damage that the force of the

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.

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 August 15th Japan surrendered, and on September 2nd, 1945 they signed the “Instrument of Surrender”. Hospitals were filled with patients who had not seemed sick before. People vomited, bled from their gums, and spots had begun to appear on their skin. Later Japanese doctors discovered that the people were dying from radiation that came from the atomic bomb. {look up: conspiracy theory} When considering using the atomic bombs, President Truman took into account the lowest possible cost for ending the war, he also wanted to end the war quickly. Truman once stated, “When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.” After the Pearl Harbor invasion. The U.S. started with “Operation Downfall,” invading Kyushu, many casualties where estimated, but this war proved to be even more deadly than predicted. General MacArthur thought that dropping more bombs, and using air power by itself would protect American lives, while also bringing forth a quicker surrender from the Japanese. When I look at both sides of the 1945 Japan bombing I really tried to stay open about the different viewpoints. The fact that the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands crippled Japan was interesting to find. I felt that the Japanese did not want to compromise, and in some way bit the hands that fed them. It seems these allies had allot of power. The Japanese seemed to only

They also said that Truman should have chosen different ways to compel a Japanese surrender instead of dropping atomic bombs into two cities. The most obvious alternative is an invasion of American into Japanese mainland because Japanese was very close to defeat. And the World War II was close to the end. However, according to historians, the atomic bomb probably saved half of a million U.S. lives, not to mention the number of Japanese casualties than the invasion. Moreover, Japanese was close to defeat, but not close to surrender. Therefore, the decision of President Truman was necessary at that time. His decision was just for the good of America as well as was to save lives of both American and Japanese soldiers. If the war was prolonged, a lot of soldiers would die and the expenses would increase.

Perhaps the most controversial and heavily scrutinized issue of the twentieth century was President Harry Truman’s decision to unleash atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945. While the sequence of events preceding that fateful summer morning of August 6,1945 are fully understood, the motives behind Truman’s actions are shrouded in controversy. Top military officials publicly denounced the use of such a horrendous weapon, while the obvious advantages to the bomb, traditionalists argue, was a shortened Pacific War. Parallactic views between traditional beliefs and revisionist theories suggest that the issue is still very much unresolved. Why is the issue so hotly debated? Partially because of the overwhelming

President Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan during the Second World War is the most controversial decision in history. While it was an undoubtedly difficult decision, it was indeed necessary in order to end this six-year war that had ravaged the world. While many critics argue that the bomb was used primarily as an act of vengeance toward Japan, simplifying such a crucial moment in human history downplays the very real risk invading Japan posed to the United States. While avoiding strained relations with the other Allied countries, Truman had to assess the possible danger of the Soviet Union in a post-war world. Furthermore, the possibility of an arms race, the moral implications of using this

On August 7, 1945 the headline of the front page of the New York Times read: First Atomic Bomb Dropped on Japan; Missile is Equal to 20,000 Tons of TNT: Truman Warns Foe of a “Rain of Ruin.”1 Now the debate between historians on the question of whether Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb was correct or not had begun.

Few events in world history have made a global impact on humanity as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The decision to drop the bombs made by Harry S. Truman, the newly sworn in commander-in-chief after the death of Franklin Roosevelt, has been one scrutinized not only for the destruction of the act, but also in itself for the actual motive of the decision. Was the decision to use the Atomic Bombs one to quickly end the war to save American lives, or did Truman do his best to prevent Soviet influence in East Asia, to try and scare the Soviet Union from making any kind of territorial claims in Japan? Because there is ample evidence for both points of view, it's impossible to declare one to be the case. While both sides have good evidence, it's likely Truman made his decisions not only to end the war quickly, but to also avoid massive casualties on both sides, and to intimidate the Soviets. This was the genius of Truman's actions, it was able to end the war that was destroying the globe's nations for nearly six years, while also preventing another war from occurring in the future, and to keep peace in the process. As far as today, there has been no atomic warfare

Furthermore, less deadly methods could have worked. An economic blockade would have convinced Japan to surrender (Doc G). This shows that Japan would have surrendered with something other than

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

Although the Japanese believed it was dishonarable to surrender and probably thought they made the best decision, I am sure they didnt think about the lives they were putting in danger. The civilians that died were not to blame, and shouldnt have had to endure the devastions of the war but sadly they did live on a military port.

President Harry S. Truman decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan is perhaps the most controversial act of policy in United States history. One of the many different reasons given for the use of this weapon was the shock effect it would produce in the Japanese foreign policy circle. While the shock of the Japanese will be discussed later, it is important to note that it had a similar effect on the west. This shock effect has caused countless authors to speculate as to the motivation behind, and effects of this revolutionary weapon.

As a person, sometimes, is hard to make decision that can change history, it is even harder for the president of the United States. When you are the president and there’s a war occurring you must understand that every decision you make impacts the country in every way. When another country attempts an attack on your country, as a president you need to make the best decision to overcome the attack and to protect every citizen of the country. These are the decisions that President Franklin D Roosevelt had to make it, however, when he passed away, Harry Truman had control power of the country and knew that he had to avenge Pearl Harbor. Before Truman can avenge Pearl Harbor, Albert Einstein endorsed a letter to President Roosevelt alerting him that there was an “extremely powerful bombs of a new type” and that the U.S. should begin a similar research. Eventually, this became the Manhattan Project, discovering nuclear fission as a weapon. In this essay we are going to speak about the decision that Truman made to drop the bomb, some arguments, and the interpretation.