The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Unjustified and Irresponsible
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was completely unjustified! The use of atomic bombs was totally unecessary, inhumane, and irresponsible. The impact of conventional bombing of Japan, aswell as the impact of the a-bombs themselves on Hiroshima and Nagasaki show how most invalid the decision to drop the bombs was. Just as well, the alternatives to dropping atomic weaponry and the political agenda behind the act of war demonstrates the US's total lack of consideration towards the heafty decision. The use of the atom bomb on Japan was a clear mistake of the US governmentConventional bombing of Japan was clearly sufficient enough on it's own. On March 9-10, for example, 300 American bombers furiously attacked Tokyo. The loss of 100 000 people, 16 miles square of the capital and a million residents left homeless were the results of this particular attack alone. "Not only were the Japanese defenses overwhelmed, but Japan's will and capacity for reconstruction, dispersal, and passive defense were less than Germany's."(US Strategic Bombing Survey: The Air Attack Against Japanese Home Islands, Washington, D.C. 1 JULY 1946) This quote clearly states that Japan was "overwhelmed". On the other hand, in the same r
trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomaria tree is the Japanese version of our The decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did work to have the Japanese surrender without appeasment. It is well-known that in order to solve a war, the surrender must be unconditional. Take for example the events at Munich. Hitler was supposedly 'appeased' during the conference at Munich, and what did he do? He took more and more, as he knew that the fear of war would stop the Allies from stopping him. For surrender to be successful and not regurgitate, it must be unconditional--unnegotiable--no matter what the price. Was it, however, excusable cause for the use of atomic weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is no doubt that there were alternatives to the a-bombs. Unconditional surrender may have been attainable through that of a naval blockade or demonstration of the atomic power minus the deaths of thousands of people. What of then, the political agenda behind the bombings? It is not excusable for mass destruction to occur for the sake of a re-election, or pleasing the people. The excruciating affects of both the initial bomb and the aftermath, are both sickening and needless; the eradication of so many lives all at once cannot be justified in any matter. The conventional bombing of Japan, although causing similar pain, would have also been enough in its own right to finish the war. To end the war the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan did surrender five days after the latter bombing , thousands of lives were hopelessly lost, acres of land and residents were devastated and the fact remains that it was not a qualified military act. by the one atomic bomb dropped from a single plane would have required 220 (From:A Guide to Gar Alperovitz's: The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: Part 1) (http://www.he.net/~douglong/guide1.htm)
Some common words found in the essay are:
Washington DC, Hiroshima Nagasaki, Lewis Strauss, Harry Truman's, William Leahy, Emperor Hirohito, Bushido Japanese, Munich Hitler, Hiroshima Nagasaki's, Nagasaki Japan, atomic bombs, conventional bombing, hiroshima nagasaki, 1 july 1946, decision drop, washington dc, atomic bomb, dc 1, 1 july, july 1946, dc 1 july, washington dc 1, conventional bombing japan, effects atomic, effects atomic bombs,
Approximate Word count = 1687
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|