Isabella Esposito Doctor Young H6SX 4/16/12 The Atomic Bomb: A True Necessity In 1945, President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb against Japan in an attempt to end World War II. It brought an almost immediate end to the war and hypothetically saved thousands of lives. Without the atomic bombs, the Japanese leaders might have dragged the war out, refusing to surrender. Moreover, the bombings could be seen as falling in line with the concept of “total war.” The decision by the United States to drop atomic bombs on Japan was justifiable based on three factors: the desire to save American and Japanese lives, to end World War II quickly, and to demonstrate the power of the US military. Harry Truman,
Is anything in war ever truly justifiable? There will always be downsides to what may seem to be the “right” decision. The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided some of the greatest devastation in the history of war. The Manhattan Project was and is still one of the most secretive projects ever created in United States history. The purpose of the Manhattan Project was simple: to build; test; and deploy the atomic bomb.
The United State’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on August 6 and August 9, 1945, has been constantly debated. Some say it was necessary to end the war. President Harry S. Truman argued that the bomb was completely necessary to end the war. It was a speedy end to the war and it saved lives. It was argued that to wait for the Japanese to surrender would have cost many 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.
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,
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.
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
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 ‘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. It is very unfortunate that many Japanese citizens died in order for the Japanese government to surrender, but it was done with a greater good in mind. The greater good that was done here was saving lives, the atomic bombs caused over a quarter million deaths while an invasion would have amounted to over one million Japanese and American lives. The dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary because it saved more lives then the bombs took, and it also brought a more needed end to a bloody and costly
In general she does a good job of being unbiased, including all the sides of the Manhattan Project whether good or bad. However she does show her admiration for the scientists involved in the Project, revealing her respect for them and what they were trying to do. Tracy states that, “Regardless whatever one’s political or moral views on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what cannot be disputed is the unprecedented scientific, technological and engineering feat achieved by those who worked on the Manhattan Project” (Tracy 40). The author’s main focus is the process of creating the atomic bomb. Beginning with how the Manhattan Project first came about, the book chronicles the discovery of fission, and how Pearl Harbor increased the push for a U.S. nuclear weapon.