The controversy surrounding the decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has raged on for years. Others maintain that the bombing was needless and unjustified, while others maintain that it was vital to end the war and preserve lives and that it was important to end the war. In this paper, I will inspect, analyze, and criticize the argument on the bombing of Japan during World War Two that was presented by Kevin O'Reilly in his book "From Spanish-American War to Vietnam War." O'Reilly's thesis is found in "From Spanish-American War to Vietnam War." We are going to go over the essay paragraph by paragraph and analyze its goal, the type of support it provides, and the quality of that support.
O'Reilly begins
…show more content…
He presents evidence of the devastation inflicted by the bombs and makes the argument that the United States could have pursued alternative options, such as a naval blockade, to force Japan to submit rather than using the bombs. The major objective of this paragraph is to present evidence in support of the contention that the bombing was not warranted. The support that is supplied comes in the form of an appeal to ethics, as O'Reilly argues against the use of atomic weapons using a moral justification in his …show more content…
He argues that the long-term consequences of dropping the atomic bombs, such as the arms race and the development of nuclear weapons, outweigh any short-term benefits that may have resulted from their use. The nature of support in this paragraph is inductive reasoning. He then uses analogy to support his claim. He argues that both the decision to use chemical weapons in World War I and the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan were violations of international law and the laws of war (O'Reilly et al., 1985). The nature of support in this paragraph is an