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.
Alfred Nobel owns the credit for inventing the dynamite, but he doesn’t carry an ethical responsibility for what the dynamite is being used for now a days. He just wanted to make life easier, now is it his fault that some people are misusing it for their own cruel purposes, to hurt people? Definitely not. It’s the fault of the people who are using it for wrong purposes. As rightly said by Pierre Curie, “Alfred Nobel's discoveries are characteristic; powerful explosives can help men perform admirable tasks.
This isn’t case with as this arms race progressed it became clear about the catastrophic dangers nuclear warfare would bring if the weapons were ever deployed. Seeing the fact that during this period the world was brought to the very brink of annihilation in 1962 but in spite of that the world survived that fearful time and has made significant progress in peace from this period of time to the modern day. So it can be said that bizarrely the nuclear arms race didn’t make the world a more dangerous place as one would assume but rather pushed the world to more peaceful times. On the other hand people’s reaction towards the view at the time i may hold some truth as destructive potential of nuclear war never ceased during this period. The horrific power shown by these weapons when used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima didn’t cause others to be fearful of the USA’s weaponry and to stop production of new weaponry but rather ironically increased it.
He was on the front line, he was right there about to invade a place in which he was told he would probably not make it out of. He is solely speaking from a selfish standpoint and only speaking for the people that stood beside him waiting to die. One may wonder what Fussel’s argument might be if he were not on the front line. In conclusion, in the position I have taken, there are some immediate and long term consequences that I could possibly see occurring. An immediate consequence would be anger from people who believe that the atomic bomb was the right thing to do.
That the use of such a weapon is excusable when it will save (in this case) American lives while implying that the (in this case) Japanese lives being lost due to its use are, somehow, not worth consideration is an example of: “The end justifies the means.” utilitarian ethical philosophy which states we should consider moral what achieves the greatest good for the largest number. Let’s be honest, the decision to drop the bomb on the Japanese was a political decision to avoid having to explain to voters why the bomb was not used to end the war quickly and avoid the loss of American lives that the invasion of Japan would have
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.
And with the cold war the likelihood would have been that once one side had launched a nuclear bomb, the other would and the cold war would have turned into a world- wide disaster. However there are some elements to the nuclear arms race that did not act as portraying it to be a stabilising factor. From 1949 both superpowers knowledge and developments of nuclear technology was expanding. Both sides wanted to match the others developments, if not exceed them in order to gain the upper hand and have more power over the other side due to the threat of the disruption a nuclear bomb explosion would cause. One, if not the most prominent way that the nuclear arms race stabilised the cold war was the threat of one being launched, both the USA and the USSR were both already threatened by the ideological capabilities of each other, which is why they feared the nuclear arms race would extend to not just trying to achieve the upper hand over their opponent.
The Decision When Harry Truman learned of the success of the creation of nuclear weapons, he was faced with the most difficult decision in history. The capacity to end the war with Japan was in his hands, but it would involve unleashing the most terrible weapon ever known. Truman ultimately had to decide if the gains from ending the war would outweigh the destruction from ordering the bombs and leading the world into the nuclear age. After very careful deliberation Truman made the right decision on ordering the use of the atomic bomb. The decision prevented millions of American casualties, millions of Japanese casualties, and served as a deterrent to the USSR expansion.
These developments changed the US policies of brinkmanship and massive retaliations, as these methods only worked while the USA remained militarily superior. The Cuban missile crisis showed how back dated these policies were, something Kennedy’s military advisors failed to notice, his understanding of the dangers and his controlled response helped save the USA from the most destructive war ever seen. However the military assured destruction that came with the power of the nuclear era forced the USA and USSR into the standoff of Cuba. This crisis was inevitable and the only way of bringing the arms race to the end. However the driving
This can be claimed to be proof that war holds back development which in some cases this is almost completely true. On the other hand it can be said that it speeds up development for example a lot of surgical techniques were invented to deal with war casualties and nuclear power is also a result of war thanks to the German atomic physicists. Philosophers believe that necessity is the mother of invention and wars create lots of necessities some of which are useful in more peaceful times whilst others can cause absolute misery in war