Why Did Truman's Decision To Drop The Atomic Bomb

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.

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.

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)

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.

The decision to drop the atomic bomb, made by President Truman, was largely influenced by political factors rather than military factors. Traditionalist historians argue from the military perspective that the bomb was used to end the war as quickly as possible and with as minimal causalities as possible. Revisionist historians, on the other hand, argue the political perspective where they believe that the bomb was dropped as a diplomatic tool to intimidate the rising superpower that was the Soviet Union. In 1945, there was little reason to doubt the traditionalist perspective; however, in retrospect, with the evidence now gathered and available, it was very likely there were other strategic reasons that played a larger role in the decision Truman had made. By observing the historical timeline, the Cold War began shortly after World War II. Truman was aware of the rising power of the USSR and the threat of the spread of communism into Europe and Asia. The fear of this threat was what likely influenced him and Congress to use the bomb more so than the desire to end the war more efficiently.

Imagine yourself making the toughest decision in your life, whether sacrificing a million of our men and thousands of war ships and plans, verses several thousand of Japanese civilian populists. This decision was on the shoulder of Harry S. Truman, the United States President, who had to make this decision by deciding whether or not to drop a newly designed weapon. The atomic bomb was tested in the sands of New Mexico, where it proved to be very successful. Harry S. Truman made a very successful decision, because he wanted to end the war quickly, show others that the United States had power, and the retribution of Pearl Harbor.

Webster’s dictionary defines hindsight as “the ability to understand, after something has happened, what should have been done or what caused the event”. It is a fair assumption that most people understand the old adage “hindsight is always 20/20”; alluding to the fact that, in our everyday lives, we as humans make decisions based on what we know, what seems right and occasionally what makes our lives easier. The average person does not have the mental capability to consider every possible outcome that a choice will have on his entire life, all within the thought process that leads him to reach a conclusion, however long and detailed that process may be. If we add massive amounts of pressure, contradictory advisement, the lives of

Many debates have been provoked based on President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The debate is not solely based on the bomb being dropped, but more on the actual necessity and intention of the bomb being dropped.

Why President Truman Decided to Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki At 02:45 August 6th 1945, the B-29 Superfortress the Enola Gay took off from the specially lengthened North Field on the Island of Tinian in the Marianas. The plane piloted by Colonel Paul Tibbets was 7 tons. At 0815 hours the bomb doors of the B-29 opened and flying at approximately 32,000 ft the uranium based atom bomb code-named “Little Boy” was unleashed upon the city of Hiroshima. Over 70,000 men women and children were killed by blast alone.

Harry S. Truman was the 33rd president of the United States of America. He became president because Franklin D. Roosevelt died during his term; Truman was Roosevelt’s Vice President at the time. Truman found himself facing some of the greatest challenges met by any 20th-century president. He discovered in July 1945 that some scientists working for the United States government had successfully tested an atomic bomb in New Mexico. President Truman wanted to use the atomic bomb to end the war in the Pacific, but with fewest U.S. catastrophes. This decision was one of the most momentous decisions of the 20th century and extremely perplexing when analyzed.

Intro – A short introductions on the modes of persuading the President’s decision on dropping the atomic bomb by explaining the ethos, pathos, and logos in the letter.

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

Was Truman actually justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? The atomic bomb on hiroshima was devastating. It killed thousands of people in the process of finishing the war. Truman and the rest of the country were rushed in finishing the war but didn’t want to lose any more men than they had to. In the writer’s opinion Truman was not justified in dropping the atomic bomb because of how many lives were lost and how inhumane it was to drop the bomb.

A famous expression often used by Harry Truman was “the buck stops here”. This means that all people have the tendency to pass along responsibilities and blame. Harry Truman, however, believed that as the President of the United States, he must take responsibility for his actions. One decision he weighed was the decision to use nuclear weapons during the Pacific War in the year 1945. President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a suitable decision and saved far more Japanese lives in the long run, while also preserving hundreds of thousands of American lives.

When President Harry S. Truman ordered the nuclear attack on Hiroshima on the 6th of August, 1945, most people were supportive of it because it ended the war before an invasion became necessary. Seventy two years since the first and last nuclear attacks, many 'traditionalist' historians still believe that Truman made the best possible decision in the given circumstances. However, in the 1960's, Truman's critics, who reinterpreted history began to believe that the bomb played no significant role in ending the war and was thus unnecessarily used. These revisionist historians have gone so far as to characterize the use of nuclear weapons as “the single greatest acts of terrorism in human history” (Awan, 16). On the other hand, traditionalists argue that the bomb was an important