Is the need of even more violence needed to stop a war? Although some people may think so, there’s already enough violence in wars, adding even more of that violence may make things worse which that is usually the case. When the U.S was at war with Japan things got very tense, it got to the point where Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The U.S decided to strike back in a very merciless way. This war was needed to be put to an end therefore the United States decided to drop a nuclear bomb in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The event happened on August 6 and 9, in the year 1945. I don’t believe that this was the correct way to end the war, innocent people died and radiation was still affecting the area even after it all happened. Although it was an effective way to end the war there is other ways the two countries could have come to an agreement so such violence wouldn’t be needed. If Japan had decided to strike back things could have gotten really dreadful but luckily it didn’t. Also, there is enough violence and death in war whether it’s small or big, there’s no need to bring more to the table. …show more content…
For the reason that Japan decided to surrender was why World War II ended. However, it’s good that it ended the war but there were at least 129,000 people dead. The ones who died were mostly civilians and it’ll be an event everyone will remember, a immoral one. People had died for the reason that the nuclear bombings had left a lot of radiations. People died from injuries like burns, and radiation sickness. Therefore, now the city is starting to get natural life back and civilian trying to live where the nuclear bombed was dropped after many years