The Pros And Cons Of The Bombing Of Hiroshima

Was it the right decision? In the seven long decades since the decision was made to bomb Hiroshima, much has been written both defending and attacking it. With all the information given, this paper should present an argument that the atomic bombings of Japan were wrong. The “wrongness” of the bombing of Hiroshima can be approached from a few different ways. One reason why I am against it is because I feel there were other things that could have been done that were less intrusive than an atomic bomb. Secondly, I argue that it was pragmatically wrong because the Japanese were about to surrender, anyway. Finally, the suffering on the human level was shockingly dreadful. I can’t imagine the pain that was endured during that time. Even
Two-thirds of Hiroshima was destroyed. Sixty thousand of the ninety thousand buildings within a three mile radius were demolished. Hiroshima’s population has been estimated at 350,000; approximately 70,000 died immediately from the explosion and another 70,000 died from radiation within five years (Rosenberg). That is a tremendous number of innocent people that died that had nothing to do with the war. Even after four years, the Americans had not forgotten about the military bombing of a U.S. Naval Base Pearl Harbor. I think anger was a big factor in poor decision making, which just goes to show that it was probably not the best decision that our country could have made at the time. The concept of wasting time, money and hard work, along with anger and curiosity, made it much easier to drop that bomb without weighing the pros and
By today 's moral standards, the answer is very clear, or at least I would like to think so. The use of war in general and the use of weapons of mass destruction should be avoided whenever possible. By the standards of the day it is not so clear cut. The one thing that was clear was that the quicker the war ended with the fewest American causalities, the better for the country in general. Then you also have to consider the "what ifs?" What if the US didn 't drop atomic weapons in WWII and the public understanding of atomic weapons and the aftereffects were not developed. Such historical "might-have-beens" are fundamentally not provable, but given the moral repercussions of the destruction and lives lost due to the atomic bombing, the United States can be faulted for not commencing a greater peace