To Bomb or not to bomb? That is the Question
             Over the past half-century or so, people have always questioned and debated the use of certain military tactics or actions during times of war and or conflict. No one military action has been as widely debated as the United States' decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since public opinion is so torn between the issue, some credit the seemingly endless debates as one of the reasons why this has been the only instance in which an atomic bomb has been dropped on a populated area. This decision has sparked arguments stemming from moral, as well as ethical standpoints. Both sides of this debate have several arguments they use against the other. Nevertheless, President Truman, as commander-in-chief of the United States, came to the conclusion that by putting to work the technology we already possessed, i.e. dropping the bomb, he could ensure a quick end to the war, as well save thousands of lives; both American and Japanese.
             Those who oppose the use of the atomic bomb argue that the United States was too hasty in deciding to use the bomb. They feel that the United States did not hold into account other options open to them. They say that Truman was too firm in his demands for an unconditional surrender from Japan. Others have come to the conclusion that the number of casualties caused by using the bomb exceeds the number of lives saved from not using it.
             John Rawls, author of Fifty Years after Hiroshima, is one of the several people who oppose the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In his writing, Rawls outlines and explains several points that reflect his opinions toward the bombing. In one of points, Rawls says, "A decent democratic society must be respect the human rights of the members of the other side, both civilians and soldiers..." (Rawls, 215). While this argument, as well as the ones stated...