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’?
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.
In order to end the conflict of the World War II, a weapon that surpassed all other conventional weapons of that time would need to be created. In 1939, rumors of Nazi Germany pursuit to manufacture an atomic bomb and insure their victory in the war terrified the scientist that sought refuge in America. It also heightened the urgency for America to create the atomic bomb first. Albert Einstein was the one of those refugee scientists that was alerted to Germany's intent and wrote letters
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.
The main reason I think the negative side won the debate is because the atomic bombs saved lives through preventing the invasion and conventional bombing of Japan. Also, by not allowing a conditional surrender, the United States helped Japan keep a stable society with their emperor without ruining national identity. An additional bonus to the success of the bombs was that the atomic bombs also asserted the United States as the dominant hegemonic power in the world. During the debate, the affirmative side argued that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary to end the war because the United States used the bombs only to assert its global hegemonic dominance, and there were alternative options to ending the war such as negotiating with Japan to establish a conditional surrender, which Japan wanted, and using conventional bombs to invade Japan if the surrender failed. They stated that the United States only used the atomic bomb to show its power to the USSR.
Stalin was determined to make the Soviet Union a nuclear power, after the USA created the first atomic bombs during the Second World War, which were tested in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. In August 1949 the Soviet Union successfully tested an atomic device, thus bringing an end to the US nuclear monopoly and this subsequently led to the beginning of nuclear arms race where the two superpowers aimed to match each other. Indeed with both superpowers having nuclear capabilities a balance of terror was once again established. The fact that each of the super powers now had nuclear capacity was clearly a stabilising factor, because nuclear weapons meant that the destructive power of each was greatly increased and subsequently so was their vulnerability should we not have the balance of terror in place. In this way the nuclear arms race brought some stability to relations between the superpowers in the period 1949 – 1953 because the threat of nuclear attacks forced both superpowers to limit conflict.
The question still lingers in our mind as to ‘Was America Justified in Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima?’, as evidence suggests, there is strong belief that the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima was in fact justified. This essay proves the fact that America was justified, after informing you about the main participants in the war, it will go on to state the arguments for and against dropping the bomb, and after that the effects and finally the conclusion. As Germany had surrendered, the war in Europe was now over. The USSR had gained most land in Eastern Europe; all that was left was the problem of Japan. And the clear solution to this problem and to one to end the war was to drop the bomb on Hiroshima.
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. Popular opinion tends to side with the revisionists, but I will argue that Truman made the right decision, not only for the United States but also for Japan; in fact, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved Japan. Revisionists argue that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima after Japan’s armed forces and over sixty of its major cities had been already been destroyed. Moreover, historians such as Howard Zinn argue that Truman knew that the Japanese were trying to surrender but that he ignored them because he wanted to use the Bomb (23). Gar Alperovitz, another revisionist, says that Truman’s main purpose in dropping the bombs was to demonstrate its power in order to intimidate the Russians (127).
The U.S. believed that if the atomic bomb ended the war, the U.S. would establish postwar supremacy over the Soviets. In addition, the atomic bomb had cost 2 billion dollars and mobilized, at its peak, over 120,000 people. Linking this weapon to the end of the war would help justify that expenditure. In addition to the desire to force Japan's surrender, these considerations led the U.S. to proceed with the atomic bombings. (2) Why did it happen?
The island of Okinawa was the closest island to the Japanese mainland, and the last island battle. Many higher-ups believed that Okinawa could be seen as a trial for an invasion of Japan, yet before the native soil of Japan could be assaulted, atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To what extent did the Battle of Okinawa affect the U.S.’s decision to deploy the atomic bomb? The decision to drop the bomb was solely up to the President of the United States at that time, Harry S. Truman. With the bomb came advances in technology, the possibility to end millions of lives, and the beginnings of the Cold War.