When Stalin agreed to join a partnership with the Americans, officials were having second thoughts. Stalin was considered a troublesome ally. When news of the successful Alamogordo test reached Potsdam, top American officials began to view the atomic bomb as a way to avoid the need for Soviet involvement in the Pacific War, rather than viewing Soviet involvement as a way to avoid the need for the Bomb. Secretary of State James Byrnes was eager to “get the Japanese affair over before the Russians got in” and felt that knowledge of America’s new weapon would make the Soviets more manageable. Ways to avoid dropping the atomic bomb were never really a matter of discussion.
The Atomic bomb is a highly dangerous destructive weapon. it’s effects are beyond horrible talking about it so just imagine what it was like for mostly innocent beings experiencing it. So in my essay i will give factual information too why they atomic bomb was uncalled for and plenty unnecessary.So here I will describe list the pros an cons of why the dropping of the America was not justified.We all know that the atomic was dropped on a well populated civllian area. Its main effect is the cause for radiation which leads to long term health issues such as cancer an deformed babies being born for those who were pregnant for the most part. To begin with, on why the United States were not justified in dropping the atomic bomb.Here is a question that can leave the reader thinking to why the attack was not thought through in a well mannered process.Which is that it was not military necessary because the United States Navy were firmly against it because it contradicted the naval blockade which was very encouraging to get Japan to end the war.
A Rhetorical Analysis of Global Warming Abstract Global Warming is an issue of great debate, but through careful consideration of both sides of the argument one will come to realize that it is not an issue that requires immediate action. With so much talk of global warming today in the news media, books, and movies like An Inconvenient Truth and The Day after Tomorrow, it is important for one to understand the arguments both for and against the issue of global warming. It is also necessary for one to decipher whether global warming is understood by the scientific community and general population before taking a personal stance. The argument has been approached from both sides here. Upon considering all of the evidence, it may then be
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.
His nuclear deterrent foreign policy played a very large role in the Cold War, and is still effective today. Nuclear deterrent means if a country launches nuclear weapons against the United States, The United States would retaliate with its own nuclear strike (“Dwight D. Eisenhower” 304). In the end there would be no real winner, just total destruction. Eisenhower demonstrated this when he said “I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.” (“Dwight D Eisenhower” 136). Knowing this, other countries will try to avoid total destruction instead of starting a nuclear war.
Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki William H*****. HIS/120 January 9, 2014 Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki One of the most controversial issues of the twentieth century is the decision by President Truman to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In doing so he may have saved millions of lives but he ushered in the start of the nuclear age that still casts its shadow. Even today we are still unable to agree to nuclear disarmament. The decision was mostly political; about the reaction of the Japanese and the Russians.
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.
Childhood thyroid cancer and birth deformities are of the most common problems due to the high levels of radiation (What is Nuclear Energy). Nuclear power plant meltdowns can cause devastating effects on the
(330). By treating the decision to drop the bomb not as a single act but as the outcome of many organizational routines, historians can see more clearly that progress on the bomb came slowly, and indeed might not have come at all if scientists had not broken through the bureaucratic chain of command. Bureaucratic structures and standard operating procedures were major factors in the development of the bomb, but within that organizational framework, not all bureaucrats were created equal. Davidson and Lytle urge historians to be alert to decisions shaped by politics within government institutions. A person’s official position in an organization does not alone indicate his or her actual influence.
The United States actions are seen by many as inhumane and hypocritical. As a nation we strive to “keep the peace” among other countries, yet we targeted a city full of innocence. Some historians believe that the U.S. wanted to prove its superiority to other countries involved in the war. Supporters of the bombing argue in a “future tense”, stating that the use of the bomb was justified in order to save millions of lives from a planned invasion on Japan. Those who oppose the bombing, including many U.S military leaders and former president Herbert Hoover, agree that it was simply a terrorist act against