Moral analysis of the Atom bomb
Paul Fussell, in his piece “thank god for the atom bomb”[i], uses strong imagery and horrific recounts of the war to support his argument that the A bomb saved American lives, thus being morale. He discredits reasoning condemning the use of the A bomb by attacking the historians’ who wrote it on the bases of their war involvement. His information, compared with Paul Hall's shows lack of depth of research.
“What it must have been like to some old-timer buck sergeant or staff sergeant who had been through Guadalcanal or Bougainville or the Philippines, to stand on some beach and watch this huge war machine beginning to stir and move all around him and know that he very likely had survived this far only to fall dead on the dirt of Japan's home islands, hardly bears thinking about”[ii] is one of the many recounts used to make the reader sympathize with American troops. And with "The true, climactic, and successful effort of the Japanese peace advocates . . . did not begin in deadly earnest until after the 'second bomb had destroyed Nagasaki."[iii] He makes his argument that the A bombs saved American lives, thus are morale.
Paul Fussell acknowledges arguments against the dropping of the bomb, such as John Kenneth Galbraith’s “The A-bombs meant, he says, "a difference, at most, of two or three weeks''”[iv] and discredits them with two reoccurring methods. Firstly he appeals to the readily created sentiment of empathy for American soldiers “Two weeks more means 14,000 more killed and wounded, […]Those weeks mean the world if you're one of those thousands or related to one of them.”[v] Secondly he asserts the need for firsthand experience in analyzing the morality of the use of the bomb, “the farther from the scene of horror, the easier the talk.”[vi], “But what's at stake in an infantry assault is so entirely unthinkable to those without the experience of one, or several, or many, […] that experience is crucial in this case.”[vii] Then...