Ironically, the man who took a huge step forward in destruction did not want to be viewed that way. Nobel also created the Nobel Peace Prize which is still awarded to the great peoples of today. Robert Oppenheimer is most famously known as the inventor of the atomic bomb. He was a physicist who was in some ways similar to Nobel. Robert’s atomic bomb is a huge paradox.
In fact, the debates behind using the atomic bombs against Japan began even before the decision was made. Many of the scientists such as Leo Szilard and Dr. James Franck, who made great contributions towards the creation of the bomb, campaigned against its use. President Truman said “We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Amercicans”. It is completely understandable that President Truman’s aim was always to save the lives as many American people, but was it necessary to do it by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan? 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’?
Model Essay Student’s Name Section Number Why the Atomic Bombs Saved Japan. The decision to use nuclear weapons to stop the War in the Pacific by President Harry S. Truman in August, 1945 remains controversial to this day. Most of Truman’s critics, the so-called revisionist historians, argue that Japan wanted to surrender and had already been defeated, making the use of atomic bombs unnecessary. They say the bombs were used mainly to demonstrate America’s power to intimidate the Soviet Union. 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.
Although he did approve of the bomb, Roosevelt was unconcerned about actually dropping the bomb on Japan. Instead he supported the idea that since Germany was possibly looking into the same type of destructive weapon, the U.S. needed to advance in the field in order to prevent detrimental attacks against them. He had the Great Depression on his hands as well and was less motivated during his time to destroy Japan to end the war more efficiently. On the other hand, Truman saw his opportunity of bringing the United States to the end of the war in a quick manner by releasing the bombs since Japan had no intentions of taking an easy surrender. To prevent going through an invasion, Truman made a hasty decision to drop the bombs.
Some believe that the United States was correct in dropping these bombs on Japan because of the attack on Pearl Harbor while others believe that it was very wrong to dropped the bomb. I think the United States should have not dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the atomic bombs was too expensive and it was not really worth it, they wiped out two entire cities, and Japan was planning on surrendering. The atomic bomb they used on Nagasaki cost 2 billion
Truman made some decisions that ultimately had a huge effect in the build up to the cold war. When plans were made for the division of power after WWII, Truman originally opposed America ganging up against Russia and said he would keep the agreements that were made with them. But Truman wanted to appear decisive and tough and he was not prepared to accept any deal if he could not get the majority of it his way. When Truman went to the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, he went there only to advance American Interest and he believed that the atomic bomb was the way to do this. Though this treat he was able to have his way at the Yalta conference.
What in your opinion was the short term significance of the use of atomic weapons in 1945? (25) It would be simplistic to argue that the end of the war in the Pacific was the most important short term significance of the use of atomic bombs in 1945 against Japan. While the use of Little Boy prompted the Japanese Emperor’s ‘ordered surrender’ , and claimed the lives of thousands of Japanese civilians, it is my opinion that the bomb sparked the onset of the Cold War. As Eisenhower said ‘Before the atom bomb was used, I would have said, yes, I was sure we could keep the peace with Russia’. , highlighting that he believed without the use of atomic weapons, the Cold War was not an inevitability.
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.
On similar note, questions have arisen over whether there must have been any hidden agenda or ill intentions by Truman in arriving at such a decision .The fact that Harry Truman defended his decision points to the fact that it was a means to an end (Bernstein, 1998). Besides the negative impacts that the atomic bombing decision by Truman had on Japan and its populace, the decision equally had political implications particularly for the United States of America. This paper evaluates and discusses President Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan during the World War II that killed and maimed
The bombs affected the children of the future, who are not to be blamed for anything that took place in the war. They also violate the Just War Theory, and did not give the US any tactical advantage in the war- the bombings were simply experiments to show the world America’s military standing. Along with that, US should not have taken revenge for Pearl Harbor on such a large scale. Some people argue that the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified as the Americans had the right to take revenge for the attack that occurred at Pearl Harbor. This isn’t true.