The Pros And Cons Of The Atomic Bomb

On August 6, 1945 the United States deployed the first atomic bomb over Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once the United States dropped the atomic bomb there has been a lot of comments whether or not it was the right move to do. I believe that it was justified for the United States to drop the atomic bomb on Japan however, it did have some cons to it. The reason behind dropping the first atomic bomb was to stop the war. Although it roughly killed around 60,00 people in Hiroshima and 35,000 in Nagasaki. If they didn’t drop that bomb the war could have claimed more lives than the atomic bomb dropping.

“The city was hidden by that awful cloud . . . boiling up, mushrooming, terrible and incredibly tall," said Colonel Paul Tibbets, pilot of the modified B-29 bomber that dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The bombings resulted in the death of thousands, including not only Japanese citizens, forces, and military but also American captive soldiers. In the midst of World War II the United States forced Japan to surrender by dropping bombs in the major cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They released the second atomic bomb shortly after, in Nagasaki, Japan.

This essay we will be discussing the pros and the cons of President Truman’s ethical decision to drop the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There were many people against dropping the bomb on Japan as well as people in favor of bombing. I believe that President Truman made the correct decision when bombing the country of Japan. President Truman had to make decisions based on what would be right for the people of the United States and what is also helpful to the United States military. There were many decisions that were deemed either ethical or unethical made by President Truman going into the dropping of the atomic bomb.

Ray Bradbury once said, “After Hiroshima was bombed, I saw a photograph of the side of a house with shadows of the people who had lived there burned into the wall from the intensity of the bomb. The people were gone, but their shadows remained.” Keep in mind that quote only described the intensity of “Little Boy”, the nickname for the bomb that devastated Hiroshima. The bombs that dilapidated both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were harrowing, gruesome, and in all sincerity, needless. The reasoning people have given to justify the bombings was because it was a military necessity; they thought the atom bombs were needed to save lives and to end the war quickly. However, the Merriam-Webster dictionary explicitly defines a ‘military necessity’ as “the necessity attending belligerent military operations that is held to justify all measures necessary to bring an enemy to complete submission excluding those (as cruelty, torture, poison, perfidy, wanton destruction) that are forbidden by modern laws and customs of war.” According to this interpretation of a ‘military necessity’, both of the bombings do not match this definition. Various people wonder why the U.S. would condone the use of the explosives and inflict such destruction on others, considering that they had first hand experiences on devastating attacks that seemed gratuitous. Many have argued that there were multiple alternatives to such a catastrophe, and the bombs did not have to be utilized. Others state that the bombings were

The process of this investigation has revealed to me, the significance of different methods and limitations that historians experience when carrying out studies. When researching past history, authors are able to use hindsight to either enhance or hinder their writing. This was evident through the use of my secondary sources, particularly the analysis of the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima by Taketo Suzuki. I was introduced to the difficulty of gaining accurate and reliable information on an event that is certainly open to question. Since Suzuki is a part of Japan’s Research Center, there are a plethora of sources that are available to him. Although this may seem as great benefit, the challenge comes from careful fact selection.

If this had taken place the war could have ended with much less violence. “Another option discussed was a moderation of the demand for unconditional surrender. Specifically, the United States might release a statement expressing respect for the emperor’s position without having to recognize his semidivine status in Japanese culture. Tentative Japanese peace feelers had indicated that the emperor’s position was the major sticking point preventing Japan’s surrender" (Astore, May). This would have kept both the Emperor and the U.S. satisfied with the results.

the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Japan during World War II, yet the controversy about the validity of this decision continues in scientific, political and general public circles. Most likely, due to the complexity of the issue and never knowing the outcome if the bombs were not dropped, it will remain unresolved. A lesson that is continually learned in the U.S.-once again in present times-is the importance of acting from facts and not from emotion. It is hoped that all pros and cons are very seriously weighed before any action is taken if and when such a serious decision must be made in the future.

Whether the use of the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II was justified, we will never know. However, the amount of time spent on discussing the use and effect of the bomb seems to be nonexistent. If they talked about the bomb there was no major argument against using the bomb; with that came mystery because they did not understand the bomb. There were factors that they used as an excuse to use the bomb, but these were in the background and later added to make the argument seem more one-sided, in their favor. Whether the use of the atomic bomb proved helpful or not is up to debate. The atomic bomb changed the world, and given the evidence, the use of the bomb was not talked about in detail except for when and where to use it.

What if the world we lived in was no longer safe? The decision for the hydrogen brings in the possibility for safety to cease to exist at every corner of the world. Although there are many reasons why someone would say the hydrogen bomb should be created, it should not be. If created it would be able to cause even more mass destruction to civilization than the atomic bomb is, have unpredictable effects, and would change the nature of foreign policy.

The year was 1945. World War II was nearly over. Germany had been defeated and the allied forces were sure to win the war. The only unsure thing was how many lives would be lost in defeating Japan. The United States decided to drop the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. On that day the Enola Gay dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. Three days later the United States dropped "Fat Boy" on Nagasaki. 240,000 civilians, mostly women and children, lost their lives on these two days. On August 14, 1945 Japan surrendered unconditionally. Was it necessary?

I think that It was a good idea for the U.S to drop the bombs on Hiroshima. One reason why I think it was a good idea is because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and expected us to not hit back. Secondly, if we did not bomb them there would have been millions of lives lost instead of just thousands. Third, the U.S needed a way to end the war quickly so the Soviet Union did not march into Japan. Lastly, the Japanese would not surrender so they had to get them to surrender.

World War II lasted for six years from September,1 1939 to September 2, 1945 and resulted with Japan's surrender but believe it or not many events occurred both good and bad before anyone could make that choice. Before the declaration of this war japan had made an agreement with the U.S in which they gave them a friendship medal signifying peace. Turns out that wasn't the case japan actually backstabbed the U.S and on the morning of December 7th, 1941 the japanese attacked Pearl Harbor destroying nearly 20 American ships and more than 300 airplanes. About 2,403 sailors, soldiers and civilians were killed and about 1,000 people were wounded. After that the U.S could no longer trust Japan for many reasons they decided to fight back with two atomic bombs on Japan. The dropping of these two bombs on that country in my personal opinion is not justified. My reasons are that this was the first time the U.S was going to try these bombs out so in other words this was an experiment in which they had no clue the amount of damage that

On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, then on August 9, 1945, the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945, ending World War II. It is estimated that 200,000 lives were taken in both of the bombings. Prior to these bombings, during the Potsdam Declaration, Truman advised Japan that they would face “prompt and utter destruction” if they did not surrender. ( Miller Center, 2016 ) 1. ( The White House, 2016 ) 2

On August 6th, 1945, the first atomic bomb to ever be used in the history of the world was dropped on Hiroshima. The result of this bomb killed roughly 80,000 people from the blast itself, and tens of thousands more due to radiation poisoning. After a few days passed, the United States dropped another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, and threatened to drop another if the Japanese did not surrender. The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to the Japanese surrender to the United States, removing them from the war. While the use of this bomb was likely necessary at the time, was it an ethical decision? The lives that were affected from this blast were not just of those who experienced it, generations later, people who weren’t even alive at the time were faced with trauma as well. With that being said, the dropping of the bomb might have been necessary, but it was an unethical decision, even though the Japanese made it perfectly clear that they will fight until the last civilian.

This scenario also assumes that all prior attempts of negotiating surrender have failed and that Japan plans to continue the fight until the very end. Taking into account the immense damage Japan has faced, it is very probable that Japan will surrender once the Soviets declare war due to the shock and demoralization the Japanese military will face. It will not be possible for Japan to fight off two great powers from the north as well as the South. Having to now worry about the Soviets attacking and invading their country, especially given the short amount of time it would take the Soviets to reach Japan, Japan might be desperate for an end.