I disagree that the Japanese in WW2 were defeated more because of their weakness rather than the strength of the Allied forces. The Japanese weaknesses included their incapability in managing the empire they took on. The strengths of the allied powers included their intelligent military strategies, an example was the "Island Hopping Strategy of Attack" used by America. Also, the dropping of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had an impact on Japan which caused them to surrender. The term "defeated more" refers to the factor which had the greatest impact on Japan, causing them to be drove to a state of devastation and have no other way than surrender unconditionally.
Model Essay Student’s Name Section Number Why the Atomic Bombs Saved Japan. The decision to use nuclear weapons to stop the War in the Pacific by President Harry S. Truman in August, 1945 remains controversial to this day. Most of Truman’s critics, the so-called revisionist historians, argue that Japan wanted to surrender and had already been defeated, making the use of atomic bombs unnecessary. They say the bombs were used mainly to demonstrate America’s power to intimidate the Soviet Union. The historians who support Truman, sometimes called the traditionalists, agree that Japan had been defeated but argue that Japan was not ready to surrender and was, in fact, preparing for one last great battle that would have cost millions of lives.
This is a really hard argument because if you attack the enemy army which is attacking you, you have to think about the deaths of your own men. Since bombings where so unaccurate they might have missed and hit themselfs. But if you do attack factories you can slow down the production of weapons. The attack on Japan was not acceptable. The U.S did not have to kill millions of innocent civillians just to make Japan surreneder.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed millions of people, left families with nothing, and leveled cities. The war would have gone on for a couple more years if we had not dropped the bombs and sent troops to Japan instead. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. This is one of the pros for the atomic bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of the pros for dropping the atom bombs is that the Japanese would have not surrendered.
This is demonstrated through the questionable policies such as Brinkmanship, Massive retaliation, and how the culture of paranoia and secrecy caused both sides to constantly create more nuclear weapons to feel protected against the other side. The role of each side reacting to the other during the nuclear arms race proved to be a threat to world peace. One crucial feature of the race was the difference between what each side perceived of the other, and what the actual reality was. It is clear that mutual over estimation of each side’s capabilities led to an environment in which the usual mood was to increase their own arsenal, based on the assumption that the opposing side was superior. This resulted in a reaction from the other side on the assumption that the opposing side was building up to gain a measure of superiority.
The decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had many influential factors effecting the decision. There certainly was the possibility of success for an invasion, but the decision not to invade far outweighed the decision to invade. Conventional bombing and Blockade were considered in the effort to force Japan into surrender. But, the fact that the Japanese military were controlling the Government and were in a state of mind of absolute refusal to surrender, meant that this was not a reasonable option. Political factors were greatly influential of Truman’s final decision to drop the bomb and the threat of Russian military who were soon to advance in the region had its impact.
There are many statements and arguments that suggest that the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima was necessary to end World War II. Such as the Japanese were not surrendering, they still had fighting power as they had sunk U.S. Naval Ship Indianapolis only two days before the bombing Many of this argument can be counted as the only reason the Japanese weren’t surrendering is because they didn’t want to give up there emperor to the “unconditional surrender”, they practically had nothing left. They were sending their battleships and pilots out on suicide missions as they were desperate. Necessity of the bomb lies with the amount of people that would have been killed in a land invasion, although it was vastly exaggerated.
The entire world changed after the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese islands of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It created a mass hysteria considering that now the world could be destroyed from the use of these awesome bombs. As the United States gradually slipped into the Cold War with the Soviet Union, people hoped that some ethical codes instilled within us all would prevent the obliteration of the earth by use of atomic bombs. Though the power of the atomic bomb has not been unleashed upon another civilization since Nagasaki, the hope that an ethical code can regulate interactions throughout all regions, states, and nations is erroneous. Blackburn, in his short introduction to ethics through the book “Being Good”, gives seven threats to ethics that denounces the ability to regulate interactions ethically.
The island of Okinawa was the closest island to the Japanese mainland, and the last island battle. Many higher-ups believed that Okinawa could be seen as a trial for an invasion of Japan, yet before the native soil of Japan could be assaulted, atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To what extent did the Battle of Okinawa affect the U.S.’s decision to deploy the atomic bomb? The decision to drop the bomb was solely up to the President of the United States at that time, Harry S. Truman. With the bomb came advances in technology, the possibility to end millions of lives, and the beginnings of the Cold War.
In fact, the debates behind using the atomic bombs against Japan began even before the decision was made. Many of the scientists such as Leo Szilard and Dr. James Franck, who made great contributions towards the creation of the bomb, campaigned against its use. President Truman said “We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Amercicans”. It is completely understandable that President Truman’s aim was always to save the lives as many American people, but was it necessary to do it by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan? And was the reason behind the decision to drop the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki purely to ‘save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans’?