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.
Nevertheless, the elements used for it can also be used for creating nuclear weapon. Human beings have always been at war with each other, and since prehistoric times they have been inventing more and more accomplished methods of murdering each other. At the present moment nuclear weapon is one of the most effective ones, along with bacteriological weapon. Nuclear weapon was used only two times in history, on Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. It slaughtered all the dwellers of these cities, and polluted the area so that people could not live there.
When realizing that Japan would be able to defend their home front with the large army that they had, and was able to invade the US, Truman had no other choice. So when the question “was the US justified in dropping the atomic bomb against Japan?” the answer is definitely yes! The US knew that if they dropped the atomic bomb they would end the war much quicker. Their would be prevention in more American casualties because as predicted by the US the invasion of Japan would make Japan loose about one million soldiers, and the US would just loose about five hundred thousand soldiers. So to prevent the massive amount of human loss the atomic bomb would be the best idea.
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.
Why Countries Shouldn’t Have Nukes In the past there have been many reports of nuclear activity over the years. Terrorists have been attacking nuclear futilities all around the world. Previously terrorists attacked a nuclear facility in Russia to steal enough uranium to make a nuke that could hurt millions of people. Today we have newer technology that could hurt us more than help us. This is why I think we shouldn’t have nukes in some countries of the world.
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’? “We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.” One of the biggest arguments in the debate on the necessity of dropping the atomic bombs is the argument that it saved American lives, which would have otherwise been lost in the proposed alternative: a land invasion of Japan. It was necessary to ‘completely destroy Japan’s power to make war’, and the best way to do this, to save American lives, was to drop the bombs. “Operation
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).
The first planned attack was to send 3,000 bombs and missiles out on the Iraqi people where civilians were among the population, unarmed and innocent. This went against the theory where “Civilians are never permissible targets of war and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.” It was clear that this was not the case. It has been argued that if the intent to go to Iraq was for a change in government, that it would be morally justified. If the sole reason for war was to capture Sadaam and his officials, this would then be unjust.
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.
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.