I will be looking at two views: They are both justified, or that none are justified. “I always go back to Harry Truman: Should we drop an atomic bomb to save 100,000 lives? That's a hell of a decision to make.” ~ Lee Iacocca In my opinion both bombs are justifiable because America saved more lives- more people would have died in an invasion. Japan was not going to just surrender. The Japanese believe in fighting to the death.
The bombing of Hiroshima, and later, Nagasaki were not justifiable military acts but war crimes. One of the major arguments about the bombing of Hiroshima had been whether the Japanese would have surrendered without the atomic bomb or not. President Truman said the atomic bomb was necessary to make Japan surrender quickly and prevent both more American and Japanese casualties. Others believed that there was no need for the use of the atomic bomb. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey issued in July 1946 declared “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior
Because of the slight opposition and Truman’s advisers being eager to use the bombs, I think the decision to drop the bomb was made far easier and the full ramifications not taken as seriously as they should have been. There are many pros and cons of whether or not the United States should have dropped the atomic bomb. The truth is the dropping of the Atomic Bomb ended the war quickly. It saved many American/Allied lives,
I do agree of dropping the bomb because it did save a lot of lives. Franklin Roosevelt was trying to find a way to end the war very fast. Then Truman had to end Roosevelt’s idea of winning the war fast. Truman wasn’t looking for a way to not use the atomic bomb. The United States wanted to end the war fast because we wanted the lowest amount of casualties.
After multiple ideas along with deep thought, Truman along with the chiefs decided the most efficient, least costly and less bloody approach would to be dropping the atomic bombs on the Japanese home land. The essay states “evidence points to the conclusion that he acted for the reason he said he did: to end a bloody war that would have become even bloodier had invasion proved necessary” pg 175 Readings in United States History. The writer’s purpose of this essay is to educate the readers about the difficulty of this decision. I believe the writer did a fine job explaining the whole process. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombing are two greatly important milestones in the United States history, and the essay “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Bomb,” by Robert James Maddox is a perfect essay to be read over and discussed in a class like this.
Many believe that the bombings were justified because it is said too have prevented millions of deaths that would have occurred due to an allied invasion of Japan. While others talk about how it ended WW2 and brought supposedly justice and glory too Americans and it’s nation. They have failed too realize that all of this is temporary and can or should be acceptable of the damage and facts that show more bad than good was done over history. The united States at the time states that they saved on resources which is true because dropping the atomic bombs they were fire bombing cities in Japan using up tons of fuel,planes,and bombs achieving the same effect as the atomic bomb and killing just as many
The Japanese were completely aware of the consequences of continued resistance by the terms of the Potsdam Declaration signed by President Truman of the United States, Prime Minister Attlee of the United Kingdom, and Chiang Kai-Shek, President of the National Government of China. When Japan rejected the terms on the Potsdam Declaration, Truman authorized the use of the atomic bomb, even though his military advisors told him that a potential loss of about 500,000 American soldiers was at risk. Secretary of war Henry L. Stimson said that the use of the atomic bomb against Japan would be the "least abhorrent choice". It was necessary to produce
Paul Fussell begins “Thank God for the Atom Bomb” with a quote from an advertisement: “In life, experience is the great teacher” (13). Throughout the paper, he argues that experience is necessary in order to make informed, pragmatic decisions. Accordingly, he uses ad hominem attacks on people who do not have experience with war yet still preferred invading Japan to dropping the atom bomb. He explains that using the atom bomb was necessary because Japan was not going to surrender – Japan’s war minister wanted to “fight to the bitter end, defending the main islands with the same techniques and tenacity employed at Iwo and Okinawa” (Fussell, 22), and after the Emperor did surrender following the atom bombs being dropped, many soldiers committed suicide because of the dishonor (Fussell, 23) – and an invasion could have had 1,000,000 American casualties (Fussell, 15). The ad hominem attacks are not necessary to support his argument that dropping the bomb was the right decision because he refutes opponents’ arguments before resorting to ad hominem, so the ad hominem must have a different purpose altogether.
The A- Bomb was necessary because it saved the lives of countless American soldiers. The bomb droppings were not necessary if it was to showcase the full might and power of the United States to the USSR. However, I do not find enough support for the previous claim. War is destructive and deadly, so no matter the atomic bomb or a main land invasion, the end of World War II was going to be bloody. The ‘better’ choice, if you can call it that, was to drop the atomic bomb because is caused fewer deaths than invading the Japanese main land.
Take a side: The choice of dropping the Atomic Bomb was a humanitarian choice As seen in the Interim Committee’s intense deliberation, the use of the Atomic Bomb went under heavy moral examination. And sixty years later, scholars worldwide are still arguing the necessity and humanness of the a-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945. Many influential men including Winston Churchill thought of the use of the bombs as a humanitarian action that must be taken. In talking about those who were in opposition of the deployment of the bomb, Winston Churchill said: “…that rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives…” The conservative figure of a million