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.
¶ … 1945, President Truman authorized the detonation of an atomic bomb comically nicknamed "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, Japan. Just three days later, the United States launched another atomic bomb called "Fat Man" on Nagasaki. About a week after the Nagasaki explosion, Japan surrendered and the Second World War officially came to an end. The two atomic bombs resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and many who did not instantly perish suffered long-term ill effects from radiation exposure. However gruesome and catastrophic the event, the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan is justifiable because it definitively ended a brutal and ongoing war and it also helped to solidify the United States as a global superpower dedicated to defeating nefarious states including the Soviet Union.
One of the most cogent reasons why the bombs were justified is rooted in the fact that the war had been dragging on and could have resulted in far more deaths -- civilian and military -- had Japan not surrendered when it did. Estimates of up to a million lives may have been saved due to the willingness to use the bomb at that specific juncture (Dahi). Alternative scenarios to the American bombing of...
As Mason points out, "the death toll on both sides was high, and the countries' negative view of one other became almost unbridgeable," (Mason 1). A drastic measure such as a weapon of mass destruction was the impetus needed to cease the senseless fighting. Moreover, Japan had committed wartime atrocities throughout the Pacific and its imperialistic intents were threatening to destabilize the entire region. The bomb has been well-known as "necessary to end the war," (Dahi 1).
A critical justification of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was America's need to counter the growing power of the Soviet Union and to become a global superpower. Mason points out that the most logical use of the bombs was "to keep the U.S.S.R. in check," as it had sought to bolster its anti-American allies around the world (1). The United States effectively used the bombs, thus proving its efficacy as a superpower and also the effectiveness of the technology itself (Dahi). Were it not for the dual bombings, the United States might not have achieved the unequivocal global superpower status it enjoyed throughout the twentieth century, enabling Europe and…
Works Cited
Dahi, Naji. "Dropping the Bomb On Hiroshima and Nagasaki was Never Justified." Antimedia. Retrieved online: http://theantimedia.org/dropping-the-bomb-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-was-never-justified/
Mason, Emma. "Was the U.S. Justified in Dropping Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki During the Second World War?" History Extra. 6 Aug, 2015. Retrieved online: http://www.historyextra.com/feature/second-world-war/was-us-justified-dropping-atomic-bombs-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-during-second
Murray, Mike. "Hiroshima 60 Years Later." The Soapbox. Vol 3, No. 1, Oct 2005. Retrieved online: https://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol3no1/31murray.html
Weber, Mark. "Was Hiroshima Necessary?" Institute for Historical Review. Retrieved online: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
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
" 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
Anscombe and Truman’s Decision to Drop the Bomb As G.E.M. Anscombe notes in his essay criticizing Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the intention was “to kill the innocent as a means to an end” (3)—the end being the unconditional surrender of the Japanese and the termination of WWII in terms favorable to the West. The question of whether those means were moral meets with another
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's executive order to contain Japanese-Americans in internment camps could have created mistrust in the Japanese and their descendants in the U.S. Such racial antagonism could have made many Americans feel justified to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. Earlier Presidential Statement and Other Motivations The decision to bomb Japan's cities may not be deduced from documents during President Truman's presidency or blamed entirely on President Truman. A
The Reflective Essay President Harry Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan during World War II Introduction The United States remains the only country in the world that has ever made use of an atomic weapon against another country during a war. In 1945 the U.S. bombed two Japanese cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki – in what effectively informed the surrender of Japan during World War II. It is important to note
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