Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Atomic bomb ethics
Effects of the atomic bomb on the world
Ethics is it morally right to use atomic bombs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Atomic bomb ethics
Effects of the atomic bomb on the world
Ethics is it morally right to use atomic bombs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
But he had no compelling reason to do so. The bomb provided a promising way to bring about a prompt Japanese surrender without the disadvantages of other alternatives, and in Truman’s mind, its use did not require a lengthy consideration” (Walker pg. 96). After the bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people decided that the bombs were actually required. The people thought that if the bombs weren’t dropped, thousands of American lives would have died while America invaded Japan. The problem with this logic is that many people died in those bombings.
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.
The United States should have dropped the atomic bomb because it was a way to show the Soviet Union and the whole world of what they are capable of. According to President Truman, the atomic bomb is very destructive. It caused a 60 feet steel tower to crumble and knocked
American military leaders from all branches of the armed forces some prior to August 1945, some in retrospect, strongly demurred from the decision to use the bombs for moral reasons. Japan was already defeated and in peace negotiations with Russia; surrender was imminent. Moreover, Russia was willing to enter the war against Japan if necessary. Bombing dense human settlements was pretty much barbarous, immoral and would shock world opinion. Some argue a demonstration bombing away from residential areas could be used instead to force immediate surrender.
In Hiroshima alone around 140,000 people were killed by the end of the year because of the bombing. In August 1945 President Truman decided to drop two atomic bombs on Japan. The U.S. shouldn’t have dropped the atomic bomb. Things would have been a lot different if they didn’t drop the bombs. Historians have been arguing that the atomic bombing didn’t lead to the Japan surrendering.
On August 6, 1945 the world’s first atomic bomb was dropped over the Japanese city of Hiroshima by an American B-29 bomber. This bomb as well as the second atomic bomb dropped on August 9, 1945 over the Japanese city of Nagasaki killed a combined 150,000 people on impact. Although these bombs killed an immense number of people, it was still better than continuing the war and allowing another country to attempt an atomic bombing on the US. Although there were many reasons to drop the atomic bomb, the most influential were that Japan was not going to surrender and there were no strong alternatives that would have had the same final effect on the war. America’s atomic bombing of Japan was the best action available because there were no strong
The atomic bomb should be supported by the U.S. because of the following reason. Many people supported the bombing because the Japanese were given a fair warning. The supporters argument states, “Additionally, bomb supporters argue that Japanese civilians were warned in advance through millions of leaflets dropped on Japanese cities by U.S. warplanes. In the months preceding the atomic bombings, some 63 million leaflets were dropped on 35 cities target for destruction by U.S. air forces. The Japanese people generally regarded the information on these leaflets as truthful, but anyone caught in possession of one was subject to arrest by the government.
In an article published by The Atlantic Karl L. Compton gives his take on the dropping of two nuclear warheads on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While reflecting he comes to the conclusion that dropping the bombs was indeed the appropriate. I agree fully that this was the right course of action, as the Japanese had proven up to this point that they weren’t willing to back down. An alternative attack wouldn’t have been as potent, and dropping the nukes prevented greater casualty numbers. Keep in mind this wasn’t just a hasty decision made by our world leaders “Then, shortly before Hiroshima, I became attached to General MacArthur in Manila, and lived for two months with his staff.
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”.
Should Japan get bombed? Did they deserve it? Do you think revenge is the key to success? All these questions were being asked when the government was deciding to drop the bomb or not. Most say yes, this bomb should be dropped since it ended the war, but is it really worth it to kill many innocent lives?
About four years before we dropped the atomic bomb, on December 7, 1941 the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. Another reason why i believe that we should have dropped the atomic bomb, is that if we had tried to invade Japan we did not have the manpower to battle Japan without taking too many casualties. My last reason we should have dropped the atomic bomb is that Japan was not ready to surrender unconditionally. After the Pearl Harbor attack, we had to respond with war.
Atomic Bombs are devastating bombs that not only destroy everything within a huge radius, it creates the area inhabitable. After a nuclear blast, the blast zone becomes filled of radiation from the bomb, the radiation slowly kills survivors who are outside. As people are exposed to radiation, the radiation destroys their DNA, which eventually kills the person. A 1 megaton atomic bomb can cover 100 square miles, A 20 megaton blast firestorm can cover nearly 2500 square miles. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small cities, and by today's standards the bombs dropped on them were small bombs.
Should the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be remembered as a war crime or a necessary evil? As far as I am concerned, I think the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be remembered as a necessary evil. In my mind, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved many people whoever is American or Japanese.
In 1942 scientist Enrico Fermi built the first nuclear chain reactor. The nuclear chain reactor lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear power. In the next paragraphs I will be explaining to you why atomic bombs should be illegal. Nuclear weapons are very expensive, they are terrible for the environment, and they kill a lot of people. Now lets see some facts about nuclear weapons.
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.