To Bomb or not to Bomb?
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
How could someone look at the people he serves and represents and say, "I could have ended the war with the use of this bomb, but we didn't want to be immoral. There are many horrible things that come as a result of war. As a result, your son is dead!" How could anyone justify not using the bomb and be prepared to chance the lives of all those soldiers, both American as well as Japanese? The only other feasible option they United States had besides not retaliating at all would have been to invade the island of Japan. Perhaps, due to the United States having used the bomb, the world saw how destructive and horrible the atomic bomb is. He had the interests of the American people at hand, because those are the people he represents and serves. However, war, in itself, is immoral. In his writing, Rawls outlines and explains several points that reflect his opinions toward the bombing. The most horrific of these is death. 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. Truman was too firm in his demands for an unconditional surrender from Japan. While this argument, as well as the ones stated in the previous paragraph, supports the claims of the people against the use of the atomic bomb, they are more of a moral nature, not an ethical one. To say that the dropping of the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not horrible is a lie.
Common topics in this essay:
Hiroshima Nagasaki,
President Truman,
Soviet Union,
American Japanese,
,
Bomb Kagan,
atomic bomb,
Union Kagan,
United States',
Dropped Bomb,
Fifty Hiroshima,
president truman,
hiroshima nagasaki,
lives saved,
soviet union,
america dropped bomb,
america dropped,
dropped bomb,
bomb dropped,
loss life,
dropping bomb,
dropping atomic bomb,
cities hiroshima nagasaki,
|
Acceptance Essays
