War now does not allow any civillian casualites. Also now with the modern technology exaples like advanced radar, heat seeking missiles, more accurate bombing technology and more advanced aircraft, it is impossible to miss a target. Back in WW2 they bombed industrial areas because it was really hard to bomb a certain spot where the enemy army would be. I do not think it was acceptable back than because why kill millions of civillians when you can go directly to the source which was the military attacking? This is a really hard argument because if you attack the enemy army which is attacking you, you have to think about the deaths of your own men.
Model Essay Student’s Name Section Number Why the Atomic Bombs Saved Japan. The decision to use nuclear weapons to stop the War in the Pacific by President Harry S. Truman in August, 1945 remains controversial to this day. Most of Truman’s critics, the so-called revisionist historians, argue that Japan wanted to surrender and had already been defeated, making the use of atomic bombs unnecessary. They say the bombs were used mainly to demonstrate America’s power to intimidate the Soviet Union. 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.
The atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, brought World War II to a close. However, it is debated as to whether or not these bombings were absolutely necessary in order to force Japan into surrender. Japan experienced many victories after the bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941, yet it was both the American desire to avenge Pearl Harbour; the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, Japanese unwillingness to accept unconditional surrender – and Allied refusal to discuss alternative surrender terms; and the desire to end the war whilst also saving numerous American lives, that ultimately led to the use of atomic weaponry. Several alternative methods had been considered by the Allies, and these methods have been discussed by historians in regards to their possible effectiveness at concluding the war, and as such whether the use of atomic bombs was inevitable. Rather than employing the atomic bombs, the Allies could have continued with incendiary bombings, planned an invasion of the home islands, and employed the strength of the USSR in order to force Japan into surrender.
On August 5, 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb in military history on Hiroshima. Three days later, they dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki before Japan could respond to the extent of the devastation. This played a key role in ending World War II, but resulted in the killings of over 200,000 Japanese civilians (eHistory). This historical event is still a decision that is often debated on moral grounds today. However, there are some philosophies and schools of thought which, when applied to the issue, are more likely to lead one to gain a more thorough understanding of why the action was unethical and should not have been committed.
I disagree that the Japanese in WW2 were defeated more because of their weakness rather than the strength of the Allied forces. The Japanese weaknesses included their incapability in managing the empire they took on. The strengths of the allied powers included their intelligent military strategies, an example was the "Island Hopping Strategy of Attack" used by America. Also, the dropping of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had an impact on Japan which caused them to surrender. The term "defeated more" refers to the factor which had the greatest impact on Japan, causing them to be drove to a state of devastation and have no other way than surrender unconditionally.
On similar note, questions have arisen over whether there must have been any hidden agenda or ill intentions by Truman in arriving at such a decision .The fact that Harry Truman defended his decision points to the fact that it was a means to an end (Bernstein, 1998). Besides the negative impacts that the atomic bombing decision by Truman had on Japan and its populace, the decision equally had political implications particularly for the United States of America. This paper evaluates and discusses President Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan during the World War II that killed and maimed
The decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had many influential factors effecting the decision. There certainly was the possibility of success for an invasion, but the decision not to invade far outweighed the decision to invade. Conventional bombing and Blockade were considered in the effort to force Japan into surrender. But, the fact that the Japanese military were controlling the Government and were in a state of mind of absolute refusal to surrender, meant that this was not a reasonable option. Political factors were greatly influential of Truman’s final decision to drop the bomb and the threat of Russian military who were soon to advance in the region had its impact.
Necessity of the bomb lies with the amount of people that would have been killed in a land invasion, although it was vastly exaggerated. If next generation were raised on the path the Japanese were taking, they would grow up to become monsters. it saved many American Soldiers lives by stopping a land invasion of Japan and prisoners of war were being abused. But the Atomic bomb used against Japan was not necessary to end the war considering the numbers of American lives saved was vastly exaggerated, They were sending their battleships and pilots out on suicide missions as they were desperate, there was a vengeance for pearl harbour and racism towards the Japanese people, many victims of the bomb were civilians that had nothing to do with the war, the only reason Japanese weren’t surrendering is because they didn’t want to give up there emperor to the “unconditional surrender” and to demonstrate their power over the world. The bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to end the war as it would save many lives as suggests in source A “should adopt a position that rather than throw to this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British live”.
, highlighting that he believed without the use of atomic weapons, the Cold War was not an inevitability. Despite the pre-existing tensions between East and West, the use of atomic weaponry amplified the Soviet’s paranoia causing Stalin to authorise ‘a crash Soviet program to catch up’ , signifying the start of the Cold War which would shape the course of the twentieth century. A key significance of the use of atomic weapons in 1945 was the ethical implications that using such weaponry held. As Stalin stated ‘war is barbaric, but using the A-bomb is superbarbarity’ . Stalin’s view is supported by Admiral D Leahy, who in his memoirs writes ‘we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages’ This quote holds a substantial amount of weight to my argument due to Admiral D Leahy’s position as Roosevelt and Truman’s chief of staff, it would be expected for a man of such status to hold a view in support of America’s actions.
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.