Were the Atomic Bombs Necessar

A detailed Summary of Were the Atomic Bombs Necessar

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man. -Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Since June 1940 tension had been mounting between America and Japan. The

Axis Power, Germany and Italy, made strides into Europe while Japan had military

interests in East Asia. As the Japanese army marched into China and then into Vietnam,

the United States grew increasingly uncomfortable. In retaliation, the United States.

clamped a trade embargo (including one regarding oil-shipment) on Japan in July 1941.

Besides, all Japanese assets in the United States were frozen. Japan and the United States

tried to come to an agreement. On November 5, 1941, Japan offered a plan to solve the

crisis, but the American Secretary of State, Hull rejected the plan. The Americans would

only accept an unconditional surrender under American terms. This frightened Japanese

leaders because their biggest fear was losing their Emperor. As a result of the rejection,

the Japanese responded in December 1941, when they attacked United States base at

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and launched other surprise attacks against Allied territories in the

surrender. By examining the alternatives that existed; a conditional surrender, a combined

After close examination of the three proposed alternatives to the bombings, one can evidently see that the alternatives existed and were plausible. If they had been taken under closer consideration and examination at the time, they could have been reinforced and used to end the war without the use of the atomic weapons. They were examined so briefly that there "was no other alternative at hand". Unfortunately, there is no way to go back in time to repair the damage that has been done. However, a lesson can be learned, and things can change in the future, and alternatives can be explored.

people that state the bombs were unnecessary to bring the war to an end and that the use

bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unjustified.

trying to comprehend this devastation three days later, the United States struck again, this

The Japanese were not aware of the atomic bomb, they knew that there was a struggle for it's creation, but had no idea the Americans were in possession of such an awesome weapon. The Potsdam Declaration failed to mention that "prompt and utter destruction" meant the obliteration of two Japanese cities by atomic weapon. The Interim Committee, on post-war nuclear policy, discussed over lunch whether the Japanese should be given a warning before the atomic bomb was dropped and whether a demonstration should be held in the presence of Japanese delegates. The committee raised issues such as the endangerment of American troops and/or a failure. It was feared that if Japan was given warning they might try and shoot down the bomb carrying plane and what if the "demonstration" failed. They also feared prisoners of war would be moved into the target zone. The proposed alternatives were examined so briefly, that many scholars argue they did not get half the attention they deserved. Navy Captain William Parsons, the Enola Gay weaponeer and chief of the Ordance Division of the atomic bomb project code named the Manhattan Project, loathed the idea of creating an object of mass destruction. He wrote a colleague, on the topic of warning the Japanese... "the condition in Japan at the end of July 1945 were ideal for such a warning." Also, a test explosion of the atomic bomb of July 16, 1945 was a triumph. If there were people who protested the use of the atomic weapons why did they not have more meetings to discuss the effects? The Japanese were in a terrible state at that time, they were almost completely destroyed. A demonstration of this secret weapon would have given them the knowledge of the destruction and damage it would cause to an already broken state. The state of Japan would have surrendered immediately following a demonstration, if one had been planned. However, this was not the plan, the plan was to drop two bombs on Japan, with "the second blow [coming] as soon as possible to hasten surrender...". General Groves, Chief of the Manhattan Project stated, "the first would show the Japanese what it was and the second would show them they had more than one." A third bomb would have been ready within 10 days after the bombing of Hiroshima. It leads to the question as to why could there not have been a demonstration? If the test explosion was operable and a success, how could the Americans fear it not be functional? Instead of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and three days later on Nagasaki, they could have picked a site to demonstrate the powerful weapon they had constructed to destroy the Japanese Empire. After considerin

Some common words found in the essay are:
Admiral Leahy, Potsdam Declaration, President Truman, Potsdam Proclamation, Hiroshima Japan, Japanese Japanese, Japan July, Interim Committee, Manhattan Project, British Russian, atomic bomb, potsdam declaration, bombs dropped, unconditional surrender, home islands, japanese surrender, atomic weapons, prompt utter destruction, warning japanese, test explosion, fight finish, americans possession awesome, japanese armed forces, dropping bombs hiroshima, possession awesome weapon,

Approximate Word count = 2398
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: History