Imagine being put in a predicament whereby you have to make a crucial decision, either by dropping bombs to save countless lives or to let the enemy proceed on brutally killing thousands more…What would you do? Quite frankly I feel that the answer is a “no brainer!” Harry Truman’s decision, the president of the US, on dropping atomic bombs upon Japan in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. Japan was the one who first attacked the American Pearl harbour, and up until this time America was completely neutral during the war.
It 's challenging to look back at events and understand the logic of using an atomic bomb without allowing one scrap of knowledge to creep into our decision making. All of this being said, it 's still possible to come to the conclusion that using this weapon was wrong. The belief that a military blockade would end the war wasn 't believed any more than a military blockade without invasion of Germany would work. The notion that Japan was teetering on surrender is silly.
Some of the reasons why the United States should have used the bomb on japan is because the United states have given Japan multiple times to surrender and they refused each offer. So since President Truman believed that using the bombs would help end the war sooner. One benefit of bombing Japan would mean that there would be fewer deaths because if they were to continue to fight it out many more lives would have been lost. So since President Truman believed that this would make Japan surrender easier the first bomb was dropped over Hiroshima and then the second one was dropped over Nagasaki. Many people beloved that the bomb should not have been used on Japan and one reason why was because it did take the lives of many innocent people.
First off, not disagree with the decisions of the president to drop atomic bombs in Nagasaki, Hiroshima. The reason why I disagree with the atomic weapons that were drawn in japan is because there were thousand of people who were killed, innocent peoples who died in that bomb drops. there were military men who died, but at the same time is was acceptable for united states to fight, and win the war. United states were discomforted the lost thousand of people, including military, 48,000 people from the united states, military, and innocent peoples. It was grave that the united states had thousands of life that are why they proposed the attack besides japan.
“A world without nuclear war would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us”. These words were spoken by Margaret Thatcher who supported the thought of using atomic warfare, and she wasn’t alone in this idea. President Harry S. Tuman also believed that during WWII, the use of the newly constructed atomic bombs were a crucial move that the U.S. military needed to make. The events that occured on April 6, 1945 changed the course of the war, and the invention of “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” made nuclear warfare possible for future conflicts. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a military necessity during World War II.
The first reason they should have not uses atomic bombs is because the Japanese did not have enough time to look for an opportunity to surrender. According to Ralph A. Bard, that was the United States undersecretary of the Navy during World war II in June 27 1945, the Japanese were looking for a reason to surrender, so before the bomb is actually used, “Japan should have some preliminary warning... the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which...use a medium of surrender”( Document 2). In this quote, he says that the Japanese should have more time or warning before dropping the bomb because he feels that this would give them the perfect opportunity they are looking for to surrender and end the war. He also says that the United States is a “great humanitarian nation” with a “fair play attitude.”
On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped an Atomic bomb called the Little Boy on Hiroshima in Japan. A few days later the united states dropped another atomic bomb called the Fat man on the city of Nagasaki. The dropping of an atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the wars quickly, as Japan saw the devastating effects it had on their people and country. The decision to drop the bomb was a very hard one to agree on but changed lives for others. There are many pros and cons of the atomic bombs.
Using nuclear weapons did less damage than what would have happen if an evasion took place. Using those types of weapons did save many allied soldiers and it has deterred people war because they look back in history and remember that event that took place in japan and realize that the weapons did not grow weaker from that area but have only gotten stronger and more powerful with each growing day. That is why nuclear warfare deters countries from war or invasions. It also gives and advantage to them if war was to break out like the United States and Japan. Instead of the invasion the U.S used
The Atomic Bomb was only supposed to be used for defense only. In August 1945, President Truman decided to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. I think Enola Gay shouldn’t have dropped the Atomic Bomb. I’m going to tell you why.
Those who opposed the Iranian nuclear deal say that it is terrible to let Iran have any plutonium or uranium due to the history and culture of its society. Those who are afraid of Iran getting a nuclear weapon are concerned with them actually using it. Countries like France and the United Kingdom have nuclear weapons although few are worried that they would use them, the issue is who has them and what they might do with them. Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini said inn 1980 that “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah, I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam remains triumphant in the rest of the world!”
I am daunted that the most basic security danger to Australians - the 22,600 atomic weapons around the globe - has scarcely appraised a notice amid the race crusade. Sixty-five years prior today, the city of Hiroshima and, after three days, Nagasaki were crushed by atomic weapons. Before the end of 1945, the two bombs, little by all accounts, had murdered 230,000 individuals and harmed more than 150,000. Their radioactive toxin proceeds right up 'til the present time to torment the survivors and their posterity with expanded rates of growth, unending infection and hereditary harm.
For many decades it has been the president who is given the power to act solely on what he believes is best for our national interest when responding to a nuclear attack. Bruce Blair, in a dialogue about the president’s authority to launch a nuclear strike, clearly states that the system is meant to be quick and precise for time constraints. It is critical for there to be a system that works quickly. When detecting a nuclear attack heading towards the U.S., it is only a matter of minutes before impact. Consider how fast everything must happen in order for a quick reaction.
In the Second World War, a new class of weapons were deployed, nuclear weapons. The atom bombs dropped on Nagasaki and on Hiroshima was a first for war. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a military necessity because war in the Pacific had to end, and to stop the Soviet Union from fighting Japan. World War II in the Pacific had to end. The war had cost too many casualties, and destroyed peace.
The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been a controversial topic since the events occurred in August of 1945. There were many reasons why the United States made the decision to use the atomic bomb to end the war with Japan. While there were several other options the United States could have opted for, President Truman and his committee chose the plan that would save as many American lives as possible. The driving factor that led to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the race of discovery of harnessing the great power that is the atomic bomb, which included the United States and Great Britain against Germany.
Military grade weapons are made for one reason and one reason only—to kill human beings. There is no reason for ordinary people to have access to this type of weaponry, especially semi-automatic rifles. More weapons, especially more semi-automatic weapons, does not mean less crime; semi-automatic weapons are not convenient for personal protection, and banning these weapons could help lower the number of mass shootings that occur in this country today. In 2016 alone, approximately 39,000 Americans were killed by guns, most of these deaths were caused by semi-automatic weapons (Lopez).
