The decision to use the atomic bomb Written By: Truman received a long report from Secretary of War Henry L. Rooseveltthe expectations of the American public, an assessment of the possibilities of achieving a quick victory by other means, and the complex American relationship with the Soviet Union.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki The Bombings On August 6,after 44 months of increasingly brutal fighting in the Pacific, an American B bomber loaded with a devastating new weapon appeared in the sky over Hiroshima, Japan.
Minutes later, that new weapon—a bomb that released its enormous destructive energy by splitting uranium atoms to create a chain reaction—detonated in the sky, killing some 70, Japanese civilians instantly and leveling the city.
Three days later, the U. World War II had finally come to its dramatic conclusion. The decision to employ atomic weapons against Japan remains a controversial chapter in American history. Even before the new President Harry S. Their concerns revolved around a cluster of related issues: Controversy is Alive and Well The ongoing struggle to present the history of the atomic bombings in a balanced and accurate manner is an interesting story in its own right, and one that has occasionally generated an enormous amount of controversy.
That exhibit would place the invention of atomic weapons and the decision to use them against civilian targets in the context of World War II and the Cold War, provoking broader questions about the morality of strategic bombing and nuclear arms in general.
The ongoing struggle to present the history of the atomic bombings in a balanced and accurate manner is an interesting story in its own right. The design for the exhibit quickly triggered an avalanche of controversy. Critics charged that it offered a too-sympathetic portrayal of the Japanese enemy, and that its focus on the children and elderly victims of the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki encouraged visitors to question the necessity and morality of the weapons.
Their proposed exhibit portrayed the development of the atomic weapons as a triumph of American technical ingenuity, and the use of both bombs as an act that saved lives—the lives of American soldiers who would otherwise have had to invade the Japanese home islands, and the lives of thousands of Japanese who would, it was assumed, have fought and died with fanatic determination opposing such an invasion.
The revised exhibit removed the questioning tone of the original, replacing it with more certainty: When the controversy died down, the Smithsonian elected not to stage any exhibit of the aircraft fuselage. The historians who produced the original exhibit stood accused of historical revisionism by their critics, of needlessly complicating patriotic consensus with moral concerns.
The fallout from the controversy led to loud, public debate in the halls of Congress and, ultimately, to the resignation of several leaders at the museum. The Textbook Approach Because the use of the atomic weapons evokes such passionate responses from Americans—from those who believe that the use of the bombs was wholly justified to those who believe that their use was criminal, and the many people who fall somewhere in between—it is a particularly difficult topic for textbooks to discuss.
In order to avoid a potentially treacherous debate, textbooks have often adopted a set of compromises that describe the end of the war but avoid or omit some of the most difficult parts of the conversation.
A history textbook, produced just two years after the bombings did just this, sidestepping the controversy by presenting the story at a distance and refraining from interpretation or discussion of civilian casualties: Confronted by this combination of forces, Japan surrendered August The textbook A History of the United States adopts a familiar tone, arguing that President Truman based his decision to drop the bomb mainly on a complex calculus of the cost in human lives if the war were to continue: No one knew how long Japan would hold out.
The atomic bomb, President Truman knew, might kill many thousands of innocent Japanese. But life for life, the odds were that it would cost less. Truman did not hesitate. On July 25,he ordered the military to make final plans for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt it should be used.
This group debated where the bomb should be used and whether the Japanese should be warned. After carefully considering all the options, Truman decided to drop the bomb on a Japanese city.
There would be no warning. More recent textbooks often offer viewpoints from other perspectives—including Japanese civilians, who suffered the legacy of atomic fallout for decades after the original explosion—from a morally neutral stance, inviting or directly asking readers to make their own judgments.
In fact, as the documentary record shows, there was a good deal of debate over the use of the weapons during the summer ofmuch of which focused on more complex issues than the lives that would be saved or lost in ending the war.
A discussion that focuses primarily on the need to employ the bomb in order to save lives—the lives of Japanese civilians as well as those of American soldiers—is incomplete.
Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe and one of the architects of the successful campaign against Germany, was one of the dissenters.
It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face. Strategic Bombing Survey .
Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
Many critics noted, rightly, that the SBS was itself hardly a disinterested document, since it was produced by an organization with an interest in emphasizing the effectiveness of conventional airpower. The compromises 21st-century textbooks have struck appear understandable if not necessary. Uneasy allies in the war against Germany, Russian forces joined the war in Japan in August Furthermore, dropping two bombs only days apart had the added benefit of convincing the Russians that the U.
A survey of primary sources from the summer of and the months afterward reveals a variety of opinions, arguments, and justifications regarding the use of atomic weapons.In the article, Ending The War Against Japan: Science, Morality And The Atomic Bomb, the author provides information on the war in the Pacific which involved the United States and Japan.
Washington, Aug. 14 -- Japan today unconditionally surrendered the hemispheric empire taken by force and held almost intact for more than two years against the rising power of the United States and its Allies in the Pacific war. The Moral Debate: Atomic Bomb atomic bombs compared to the amount of casualties if there had been an invasion in Japan.
6 long years of war were brought to an end because of the bombings. This money could be spent on rebuilding the Middle East, and if this cost were shared by North America, the European Union, Japan and China, the U.
S. would contribute just $37 billion, compared to the estimated $2 trillion for the war in Iraq by the time it has ended. Below is an essay on "“Ending the War Against Japan: Science, Morality and the Atomic Bomb”" from Anti Essays, your source for research papers, essays, and term paper examples.
“Ending the War Against Japan: Science, Morality and the Atomic Bomb”. However, World War II was not over, and fighting continued against the Japanese in the Pacific. To finally end the war, United States president at the time, Harry Truman, made the decision to drop the newly invented Atomic Bomb on two navel bases in Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.