The Pros And Cons Of The Atomic Bomb
Taha Elghamudi
Mr. Paleczny
CHC 2DI-02
June 10, 2013
Atomic Bomb Essay
Weapons of all kinds have been used by humanity in wars, sometimes to instigate, and sometimes to make the best of a bad situation. In the case of the atomic bomb there has been a great deal of opposition to it: that it is not necessary to end the war and there are better alternatives to it. In actuality, the atomic is necessary to end the war, and it is not as “evil” as a weapon in war, as many seem to think. It will make the Japanese surrender without engaging in a more harmful and devastating invasion, it is not particularly unique in the amount damage it can cause, and it will stop the Japanese empire, which is belittling and destroying other populations in Asia.
First …show more content…
of all, the bombs will prevent the need for invasion which would cause much more death. The bombs will almost surely persuade Japan to surrender, something that doesn’t look as if it will happen in the near future. Even though Japan’s situation seems hopeless, they still don’t want to stop the war (Kagan, 6). They need something big to strike fear into the people, something like an atomic bomb, or multiple bombs, since one might not even be enough (Kagan, 7). The other approach would be to invade Japan, which as stated before would cause much more death. Despite the fact the atomic bombs seem more devastating, the numbers simply don’t add up that way. An estimated minimum of 250,000 American soldiers would be killed or injured in the invasion of the Japanese Islands, also known as Operation Olympic (Dinkins). As for the Japanese, estimates for civilian casualties go as high as 10 million (Boxer). Contrast to the atomic bomb, which if dropped on the intended site of Hiroshima will kill 80,000 (Rosenburg). America has to make a decision between an invasion that would take longer and kill more, or the quick and overall less lethal drop of nuclear bombs. Although both choices can be criticized in hindsight, it is evident that the atomic bomb is the better strategy.
Secondly, there is no doubt that the atomic bombs are weapons of mass destruction, and can painfully, and inhumanely, kill large numbers of people, but one must not forget that other types of bombs are just as devastating, or even worse.
If the atomic bomb must face a questioning of morals then so should all other weapons of destruction. For example, incendiary bombs used in World War II also had detrimental effects. 80,000-100,000 people were killed and more injured in a bombing raid on Tokyo that used incendiary bombs (Kagan, 9). This also left hundreds of thousands homeless by the destruction of more than 250,000 buildings (Kagan, 9). Clearly the atomic bomb is not in a class of its own when it comes to complete devastation. If one is to label one type of weapon as “inhumane” or “heartless” then all weapons must fall under the same scrutiny. In that case, war itself must be outlawed which, considering the current situation, is not an option. The current power of atomic bombs is not great enough to justify its prohibition, but maybe in the future they will become so powerful that they MUST be …show more content…
controlled.
Lastly, the atomic bomb will put an end to the war as quickly as possible, a war that is shattering and demoralizing peoples’ lives. Germany has already surrendered and the rebuilding of Europe will soon begin, but in Asia the Japanese are still causing death and ruin. It is estimated that between 250,000 and 400,000 people are being killed EVERY month in occupied Japanese territory, most of which are civilians (Franck, 6). These statistics must be brought into the argument of whether the bombs are necessary to end the war because the bombs will end the war much quicker, thereby saving hundreds of thousands of lives. If the main goal is to end the war with as little death as possible then Asians in occupied territories should be the primary concern because they are the ones who have been most affected and have experienced the most harm and distress. In the big picture, the atomic bomb will be saving a lot more lives than it will kill. This is a case of the death of some, for the greater benefit of humanity. One must not disregard those in occupied territories just because have been isolated and/or haven’t been talked about much, even though it is their lives that have been affected the most.
In conclusion, the atomic bomb is necessary to end the war in the best manner possible.
It will defer the need for invasion to end the war, which would be more damaging for both the USA and Japan. Arguments against the atomic bombs claim they are unprecedented when in reality they cause similar amounts of damage as conventional bomb types. Most importantly, it will end the war and therefore save hundreds of thousands of lives. The only reason people are against the bomb is that it has a powerful psychological effect, because of its radioactive nature. People hear about the death it can cause and immediately are opposed to it, since they have no proper perspective when it comes to the nature of the war. It is important to make the correct decision based on facts rather than ignorantly follow whatever feels like the “right” thing to
do.
Bibliography
Kagan, Donald. “Why America Dropped the bomb” Commentary 100.3 (1995): 17+. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 June 2013.
Frank, Richard B. “Why Truman dropped the bomb: The Weekly Standard 8 Aug. 2005: 20+.
Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Dec. 2013
Boxer, Greg. "The Atomic Bomb and the Invasion of Japan." Yahoo! Contributor Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://voices.yahoo.com/the-atomic-bomb-invasion-japan-11751174.html?cat=37>.
Dinkins, David. "Why Did President Truman Drop the Atomic Bomb?" Why Did President Truman Drop the Atomic Bomb? N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://holtz.org/Library/Social Science/History/Machine Age/Why did President Truman drop the atomic bomb.htm>.
Rosenburg, Jennifer. "The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." About.com 20th Century History. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/hiroshima.htm>.
Mr. Paleczny
CHC 2DI-02
June 10, 2013
Atomic Bomb Essay
Weapons of all kinds have been used by humanity in wars, sometimes to instigate, and sometimes to make the best of a bad situation. In the case of the atomic bomb there has been a great deal of opposition to it: that it is not necessary to end the war and there are better alternatives to it. In actuality, the atomic is necessary to end the war, and it is not as “evil” as a weapon in war, as many seem to think. It will make the Japanese surrender without engaging in a more harmful and devastating invasion, it is not particularly unique in the amount damage it can cause, and it will stop the Japanese empire, which is belittling and destroying other populations in Asia.
First …show more content…
of all, the bombs will prevent the need for invasion which would cause much more death. The bombs will almost surely persuade Japan to surrender, something that doesn’t look as if it will happen in the near future. Even though Japan’s situation seems hopeless, they still don’t want to stop the war (Kagan, 6). They need something big to strike fear into the people, something like an atomic bomb, or multiple bombs, since one might not even be enough (Kagan, 7). The other approach would be to invade Japan, which as stated before would cause much more death. Despite the fact the atomic bombs seem more devastating, the numbers simply don’t add up that way. An estimated minimum of 250,000 American soldiers would be killed or injured in the invasion of the Japanese Islands, also known as Operation Olympic (Dinkins). As for the Japanese, estimates for civilian casualties go as high as 10 million (Boxer). Contrast to the atomic bomb, which if dropped on the intended site of Hiroshima will kill 80,000 (Rosenburg). America has to make a decision between an invasion that would take longer and kill more, or the quick and overall less lethal drop of nuclear bombs. Although both choices can be criticized in hindsight, it is evident that the atomic bomb is the better strategy.
Secondly, there is no doubt that the atomic bombs are weapons of mass destruction, and can painfully, and inhumanely, kill large numbers of people, but one must not forget that other types of bombs are just as devastating, or even worse.
If the atomic bomb must face a questioning of morals then so should all other weapons of destruction. For example, incendiary bombs used in World War II also had detrimental effects. 80,000-100,000 people were killed and more injured in a bombing raid on Tokyo that used incendiary bombs (Kagan, 9). This also left hundreds of thousands homeless by the destruction of more than 250,000 buildings (Kagan, 9). Clearly the atomic bomb is not in a class of its own when it comes to complete devastation. If one is to label one type of weapon as “inhumane” or “heartless” then all weapons must fall under the same scrutiny. In that case, war itself must be outlawed which, considering the current situation, is not an option. The current power of atomic bombs is not great enough to justify its prohibition, but maybe in the future they will become so powerful that they MUST be …show more content…
controlled.
Lastly, the atomic bomb will put an end to the war as quickly as possible, a war that is shattering and demoralizing peoples’ lives. Germany has already surrendered and the rebuilding of Europe will soon begin, but in Asia the Japanese are still causing death and ruin. It is estimated that between 250,000 and 400,000 people are being killed EVERY month in occupied Japanese territory, most of which are civilians (Franck, 6). These statistics must be brought into the argument of whether the bombs are necessary to end the war because the bombs will end the war much quicker, thereby saving hundreds of thousands of lives. If the main goal is to end the war with as little death as possible then Asians in occupied territories should be the primary concern because they are the ones who have been most affected and have experienced the most harm and distress. In the big picture, the atomic bomb will be saving a lot more lives than it will kill. This is a case of the death of some, for the greater benefit of humanity. One must not disregard those in occupied territories just because have been isolated and/or haven’t been talked about much, even though it is their lives that have been affected the most.
In conclusion, the atomic bomb is necessary to end the war in the best manner possible.
It will defer the need for invasion to end the war, which would be more damaging for both the USA and Japan. Arguments against the atomic bombs claim they are unprecedented when in reality they cause similar amounts of damage as conventional bomb types. Most importantly, it will end the war and therefore save hundreds of thousands of lives. The only reason people are against the bomb is that it has a powerful psychological effect, because of its radioactive nature. People hear about the death it can cause and immediately are opposed to it, since they have no proper perspective when it comes to the nature of the war. It is important to make the correct decision based on facts rather than ignorantly follow whatever feels like the “right” thing to
do.
Bibliography
Kagan, Donald. “Why America Dropped the bomb” Commentary 100.3 (1995): 17+. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 June 2013.
Frank, Richard B. “Why Truman dropped the bomb: The Weekly Standard 8 Aug. 2005: 20+.
Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Dec. 2013
Boxer, Greg. "The Atomic Bomb and the Invasion of Japan." Yahoo! Contributor Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://voices.yahoo.com/the-atomic-bomb-invasion-japan-11751174.html?cat=37>.
Dinkins, David. "Why Did President Truman Drop the Atomic Bomb?" Why Did President Truman Drop the Atomic Bomb? N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://holtz.org/Library/Social Science/History/Machine Age/Why did President Truman drop the atomic bomb.htm>.
Rosenburg, Jennifer. "The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." About.com 20th Century History. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/hiroshima.htm>.