If you were the president of the United States during a war, and the opposing forces were talking of surrender, would you not jump on even the possibility to negotiate surrender? Would you give them their one condition they ask for and then proceed to kill around 180,000 civilians then give them that one condition to make peace? The answer to both of those questions is no. Although I do believe that ending the war sooner and avoiding invasion is a must, there were other options that in my opinion would have worked as well. The USA did NOT have to drop the Atomic Bomb. First of all, an Atomic Bomb was made primarily as a defensive weapon to try and avoid and use it more as a threat to stop a war and prevent wars/conflicts. “It was intended to be a deterrent, to make Germany or any other enemy think twice before using such a weapon against the United States.” [1]. The bomb was originally created to try and match the Germans and they feared that while Germany was on their way creating a bomb, the United Sates were just sitting idle. It is worth noting that since the use of the atomic bomb over 70 years ago, it has only been used as a deterrent ever since. The big move against the atomic bomb, and one that hits home for me the most, is …show more content…
Demonstrating the bomb by arranging for a bomb to be dropped somewhere on a pacific island, and could have communicated with the Japanese and arranged something there. It would have been possible, and it might have given the Japanese a second chance and maybe, just maybe, a change in heart. Sense it took 2 bombs for Japanese to surrender, this may have not worked and we still might have had to bomb a city or two. I don't think the Japanese would have surrendered without conditions if the U.S did a demonstration, as they really did not want to give up their leader. Although, to save more lives and to lose their leader might be a fair trade that I certainly would have