Balancing the Scales: World Peace vs. The Loss of Innocence
             On August 6, 1945, the city of Hiroshima was destroyed by the first atomic bomb used in warfare. However, to this day, a debate as to why this city was bombed is occuring. On one side of the argument, the United States dropped the bomb to destroy working parts of the Japanese war effort, save American lives, end the war, and acquire its justified revenge for the bombings of Pearl Harbor, and the Bataan Death March. In contrast, many who disagree with the bombing of Hiroshima, mention that the Japanese had already been defeated, it would have surrendered as early as December 1945 (and therefore ending the war sooner than the atom bomb), and finally the 100, 000 Japanese killed in the bombing were almost all civilians. Although all these statements can be proved, it is difficult to decide which side to support.
             Four cases can defend the United States' decision to drop the atomic bomb. First, if the United States had not dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on August sixth, a plan to invade in November would have begun. Based on past invasions, many military leaders predicted as many as 500,000 casualties and an end result much like Okinawa, which cost 13,000 American lives and twice as many casualties. David McCullough writes, " If you want one explanation as to why Truman dropped the bomb: 'Okinawa'! It was done to stop the killing" (6). McCullough is defending the Bombing of Hiroshima by saying without the bomb many American lives would have been lost. Second, Hiroshima was an "active working part of the Japanese war effort" (32). It was used as a headquarters to defend southern Japan, and was a major military storage and assembly point used for both the army and the navy. Because of the bomb, the Japanese military was utterly demolished and thus was forced to surrender and end the war. Third, after the bombings at Pearl Harbor,...