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.
Option two is that the United States should drop an atomic bomb on a deserted island so that the whole world can see what power we have. If the Japanese see what the atomic bomb can do then maybe they will surrender so that we don’t drop an atomic bomb on them. If they don’t surrender then we will drop an atomic bomb on Japanese civilians and we will not feel guilty because we warned them and they still continued to fight. With this option we hope to scare japan into surrendering and change the post war world we will be entering. Some risks with this option is that the atomic bomb has only been tested once before and if the demonstration does not do what we hope it will do then japan will continue to fight and the United States will lose stature
They stated that the United States only used the atomic bomb to show its power to the USSR. It was not a question of saving lives; it was about showing our power to the world. The affirmative side also argued that although the Japanese population was extremely loyal to their emperor and would have sacrificed themselves to protect him, the United States could have used a conditional surrender by allowing them to keep their emperor as a symbolic leader. The Japanese population would have been satisfied because they would get to keep their emperor, and the war would have ended without any lives being lost. However, if violence was absolutely necessary, the United States should have continued bombing Japan with conventional bombs and proceeded to invade Japan.
One of the pros for dropping the atom bombs is that the Japanese would have not surrendered. The Japanese believed in the old samurai way called bushido. Bushido meant loyalty, honor, and self sacrifice to the Japanese, so surrendering was not an option for them. That was one of the pros for dropping of the atom bombs. This another pro for dropping the atom bombs.
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. Finally, America had a device which they had spent millions of dollars on which could dramatically end the war without the loss of American lives. The decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had many influential factors which ended up being catastrophic for the Japanese. As the war continued there was little progress between Japan and America. With this was the losses of lives of both the American and the Japanese.
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 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. Popular opinion tends to side with the revisionists, but I will argue that Truman made the right decision, not only for the United States but also for Japan; in fact, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved Japan. Revisionists argue that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima after Japan’s armed forces and over sixty of its major cities had been already been destroyed. Moreover, historians such as Howard Zinn argue that Truman knew that the Japanese were trying to surrender but that he ignored them because he wanted to use the Bomb (23). Gar Alperovitz, another revisionist, says that Truman’s main purpose in dropping the bombs was to demonstrate its power in order to intimidate the Russians (127).
We can control our own actions whether they are right or wrong and be held accountability for them. We can teach others from right and wrong. We cannot control the actions of others even if they are good, but we can definitely hold them accountability for the wrong actions. Having more information about the timeline and events of 9-11 makes me wonder if the President would have acted on some of the information would so many people have died that day. President George W. Bush declared, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.
The question still lingers in our mind as to ‘Was America Justified in Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima?’, as evidence suggests, there is strong belief that the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima was in fact justified. This essay proves the fact that America was justified, after informing you about the main participants in the war, it will go on to state the arguments for and against dropping the bomb, and after that the effects and finally the conclusion. As Germany had surrendered, the war in Europe was now over. The USSR had gained most land in Eastern Europe; all that was left was the problem of Japan. And the clear solution to this problem and to one to end the war was to drop the bomb on Hiroshima.
The British were unable to bomb the gas chambers and crematoria for sound technical reasons. From about the end of August 1944, the Americans could have bombed these installations. Senior air commanders were justified in their decision because numerous sorties against V-1 rocket sites, barges, petroleum oil, lubricant depots, roundhouses, airfields, power stations and other German military installations would have been sacrificed due to the amount of aircrafts required to bomb Auschwitz. Heavy prisoner casualties would have arisen and the uncertainty of success would have posed grave moral questions. Overall, the Joint Chief of Staff, the British Foreign Office, the Royal Air Force, the War Department and senior officials knew that their air power was imperfect and finite and thus acted