Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
The intent was to create a massive destruction to horrific that the victims could not help but surrender without further fight - which is, of course, what happened. Our new brand of terrorism is, truly, the only effective manner that certain people have of waging a war. When you do not have the technology or the resources of the largest nations in the world, but you do know how to make and plant a bomb that is likely to kill civilians and military targets as well - do you simply roll over and surrender because you might kill innocent people? If that was the case, then the United States would have never been able to wage war with anyone using bombs and missiles and rockets - the war could have only been waged by spies and snipers.
Terrorism,...
It is an implied immaturity, a "cowardice" that a group of fighters will refuse to engage a clearly and overwhelmingly superior military and instead kill civilians - which seems to have a greater effect toward achieving their desired outcome. Terrorists can often live to fight another day. Soldiers can't. If we insist on defining terrorism in this manner, then we have to accept the label on ourselves for carrying out the attacks against civilians in Japan, German, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf I and Gulf II, and whenever again in the future we do so.
References
Alperovitz, Gar. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. New York: Vintage, 1996.
The First Nuclear Test Of course, the first nuclear test occurred before the 1950s and was part of the United States' effort to develop an atomic weapon during World War II. This test occurred at 5:30 A.M. On July 16, 1945, at a missile range outside of Alamogordo, New Mexico. Even that test was enough to convince a large group of scientists that the atomic weapon was a dangerous and powerful
Yet, this is not to say that they were not conscious of the race with the Russians or the advantages of being able to demonstrate the destructive power of the new super bomb. Yet such a view has not been in doubt by most recent traditional historians, who have seen Truman as a practical statesman with one eye on the post-war world and already dealing with problems with Stalin
Indeed, there is no moral argument to justify the use of weapons against possible civilians. The nuclear bomb lacks any precision in targeting solely military targets without causing casualties. Although its use cannot be justified from a moral perspective, it can be seen as a means to put an end to a war that had taken millions of lives up to 1945. The impact the attacks had on Japan
Atomic Bomb Historians like Gar Alperovitz and Martin Sherwin have known for many years, based on declassified U.S. government documents that Japan was going to surrender in 1945 even if the atomic bombs were no dropped and that no invasion would ever have been necessary. Their only condition was that the United States "guaranteed the safety of the Emperor Hirohito," and in the end the Truman administration agreed to this rather
" The difference in the Manhattan Project and other companies that were very similar in function was due to the need to become quickly successful and investments of "hundreds of millions of dollars in unproven and hitherto unknown processes and did so entirely in secret. Speed and secrecy were the watchwords of the Manhattan Project." Gosling states that the "one overwhelming advantage" of the project's inherent characteristics because it became
This denotes that Japanese culture had been significantly altered both by its defeat at the hands of the United States and by the occupation which were to follow. But in reality, the changes in Japan would only be a first chapter in the narrative of atomic power. Indeed, the devastating detonations on the ground in Japan were a window into a new frontier in making warfare. Indeed, on August 6th, 1945, the world entered a