Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of atomic bomb
Impact of atomic bomb
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of atomic bomb
Impact of atomic bomb
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
If the U.S. did not use the atomic bomb, the war could have killed more American soldiers because Japanese soldiers fought to the death. “The U.S. had sustained more than 75,000 casualties.” (Historical Background). The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just retaliation for Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor. The bombing was not really about saving lives.
Although it was inhumane and horrific, we were justified in dropping the atomic bombs because American soldiers were being tortured, American bodies were disrespected after death, and the bombs ended the war preventing more American casualties. The first reason that America was justified in dropping the atomic bombs is that American soldiers that were captured in Japan were being tortured. When Japanese soldiers captured American soldiers, they needed some way of trying to get them to give up valuable information because the U.S soldiers wouldn’t just tell them for no reason. So they began torturing them in hopes they’d crack. Document 2 showed the numerous
In the battle of Iwo Jima, which took place from February 19 to March 26, 1945, a total of 6,821 Americans were killed in action. The battle of Iwo Jima is another example that shows the numbers of American lives wiped off by the Japanese military. The Japanese military had to be stopped in order to save American lives. According to Document E, the invention of the atomic bomb gave the United States a more efficient way to end war against Japan, which meant the end of devastation received by the Japanese and saving American lives. On the contrary, some may argue that the United States’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was a diplomatic measure against the USSR.
If the bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States would have lost at least one million American soldiers in a mainland invasion of Japan (Tucker, 5). That stated, dropping the bombs was the only viable option for sparing both American lives, as well as Japanese lives. The dropping of the bombs, albeit horrific, is justifiable because it saved millions of both American and Japanese lives, prevented the waste of valuable resources, and played a significant role in Japan's surrender. Dropping the bombs saved more lives than if the United States had done a land invasion (Walker, 5). If the war had been prolonged, the United States would have lost millions of lives (Tucker, 5); but the Japanese would also suffer.
The bombing attacks resulted in 225,000 total casualties, and destruction of both cities. Even though dropping the atomic bombs destroyed both Japanese cities, President Truman’s decision to drop the bomb was justified, because it saved both American and Japanese lives, ended the war quickly, and established the United States as a superpower. In the same fashion
According to John Correll from his article, The Invasion that Didn’t Happen, he states that “Operation Olympic and Coronet had a projected casualties of 1,202,005”, if the US would have gone with the invasion instead of using the atomic bomb. The Atomic Bomb was necessary not only in ending the war but also preserving the lives of the American troops as if the US planned to go with the invasion that was similar to D-Day, the war would end but with many casualties of American Troops. Furthermore, President Truman stated that, “Having found the bomb, we have used it for the Japanese who caused Pearl Harbor and those who tortured American Prisoners.” Building on Truman’s thoughts, the atomic bomb was the only way to end the war as Japan deserved its actions committed against the US and the US could not bear to lose anymore troops. Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb was justified as it was utilized in order to end the war while preserving the lives of American
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 has generated much controversy over the years. Some argue that the bombing was necessary to end World War II, while others believed that more than 200,000 civilians died in vain. The use of this disastrous weapon caused a split in society which came down to the usage being necessary for the victory of the Allied Powers as well as stopping more Japanese crimes or a merciless crime that greatly injured an already kneeling, surrendering nation and caused mass innocent deaths. Due to previous Japanese actions, the dropping of the atomic bomb was justified and needed to be done to protect Americans and other countries oppressed by the Japanese.
Again, the Japanese had no knowledge of the bombs, causing even more devastating casualties. People have argued over the years if the atomic bombing was justified or not, and multiple points can be made on both arguments, yet I take it that the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justified. Keep in
The decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because, in war, death will happen no matter what, the Japanese had already done so much damage to the US with Pearl Harbor, they had it
The Japanese army was going to fight until the end and Japan had to be stopped at the time. The bombs also quickly ended the most dreadful time period that humanity has ever seen. With the bombs coming into play there were also many American lives were saved. Morally
While the United States were pushing into Japan, an estimated 1 million people would have died trying to fight each other. The Atomic Bombs only killed around 200,000 people. Saving around 800,000 people. Dropping the Atomic Bombs also helped
However, some historians have debated that, while the Hiroshima bombing helped in forcing Japan to surrender, the Nagasaki bombing was unnecessary. They claim that the two bombings were antitheses of each other: one was compulsory and the other was vicious. Several of these people include Martin Sherwin, who had noted in his book A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance (1974) that the bombing was “certainly unnecessary”; and Bruce Cumings, who said that it was “gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst. (1999) Nonetheless, one historian, Robert James Maddox, observed these claims and refuted that the Japanese “would minimize the first explosion or attempt to explain it away as some sort of natural catastrophe”.
I. INTRODUCTION Since their creation in 1945, nuclear weapons have posed a critical security risk, as they possess world-ending capabilities, and do not discriminate against those they affect. As of 2024, there are nine nuclear armed states as opposed to the single nuclear weapon state that existed in 1945. This is problematic because an increased number of nuclear-armed states raises the potential for a nuclear conflict to occur. Some individuals may argue that nuclear weapons do not pose an immediate security risk because they have not been used in conflict since the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Should the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be remembered as a war crime or a necessary evil? Martin Luther said “War is the greatest plague that can afflict humanity; it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it.” As the same logic as it, the atomic bomb used in war is not necessary. Evil is evil, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just a war crime.
Thousands of Japanese military personal and civilians were killed the dropping of the atomic bomb. This was a very important turn the war because the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced the Japanese to surrender rand withdraws from the war. The American government did the right thing when they bombed Japan. America wanted to end the war with Japan and they believed that an economic blockade and conventional bombing would force the Japanese to surrender and pull out of World War II .President stated that the bomb was a military weapon and that he never had any doubts that it should be used as such.