Atomic Bombs: Pros and Cons
It is over six decades since the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Japan during World War II, yet the controversy about the validity of this decision continues in scientific, political and general public circles. Most likely, due to the complexity of the issue and never knowing the outcome if the bombs were not dropped, it will remain unresolved. A lesson that is continually learned in the U.S.-once again in present times-is the importance of acting from facts and not from emotion. It is hoped that all pros and cons are very seriously weighed before any action is taken if and when such a serious decision must be made in the future. One of the main reasons why people have supported the dropping of the nuclear bombs is due to military strategy. Throughout the war, the Japanese had demonstrated zealous, even suicidal, resistance. Even the fire bombing of Tokyo that had killed 100,000 people did not have any political effect. Many believed that only something as devastating as the atomic bomb would be able to make Japan surrender. Similarly, these supporters say that an invasion of Japan by traditional military methods would have caused more deaths than those from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The dropping of the bombs also curta
" However, even the scientists were mixed. On the other side, people question if the effects had to be so devastating and long term. " Robert Oppenheimer was an advisor to the Target Committee, which recommended Japanese sites for the atomic bombs. He also headed the Scientific Panel that advised the Interim Committee to use the atomic bomb on Japan. In the future, it will most likely be necessary to make decisions about taking military action against other countries (with even worse weapons than the nuclear bomb). In terms of other countries, especially Soviet Union, opponents question whether the bombs made the desired impact. In 1939 some of the scientists, including Albert Einstein, told President Roosevelt about the German efforts to purify uranium-235 for an atomic bomb and encouraged the start of the "The Manhattan Project. It was one thing being capable of rendering this devastation; it was another thing actually using this capability. Further, even if Hiroshima had to be bombed to make a point, the destruction of Nagasaki was not necessary. High cancer rates, genetic changes, major organ and tissue damage, blood problems, depression and suicide, post-traumatic stress syndrome and a host of other ailments have afflicted those people who were in Japan at the time and their families and friends elsewhere in the world. It is hoped that when such far-reaching questions next arise, that more individuals who have the knowledge, expertise and varying perspectives be brought together to look at all sides of the issue before any final actions are taken. Navy had erected a blockade of the major islands, and the Soviet Union was attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria. But I do not have the feeling that it was done right.
Common topics in this essay:
Albert Einstein,
War II,
United Nations,
Soviet Union,
Manchuria Japan's,
Japan Oppenheimer,
Potsdam Proclamation,
Hiroshima Nagasaki,
Roosevelt German,
Target Committee,
atomic bombs,
soviet union,
atomic bomb,
world war ii,
dropping bomb,
action countries,
dropping bombs,
bombs dropped,
war ii,
world war,
bomb japan,
|
Acceptance Essays
