To Bomb or not to Bomb?

A detailed Summary of 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

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. In his writing, Rawls outlines and explains several points that reflect his opinions toward the bombing. In one of points, Rawls says, "A decent democratic society must be respect the human rights of the members of the other side, both civilians and soldiers..." (Rawls, 215). 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. Yes, morals are a very important aspect of life. Yes, they should be considered, and almost always are. However, war, in itself, is immoral. To say that one action by a country during a time of war or conflict is immoral is in turn saying that war is moral.

The only other feasible option they United States had besides not retaliating at all would have been to invade the island of Japan. This would be extremely difficult, as well as come with a very high cost in terms of lives lost. Donald Kagan, author of Why America Dropped the Bomb, and a supporter of the use of the bomb, states in his writing "In his memoirs, President Truman wrote that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have entailed the loss of 500,000 American lives." (Kagan, 204) There are still other supporters of the use of the bomb who estimate the loss of life would exceed 500,000. Another factor to be considered is that if an invasion were used instead of the bombs, then the entire country of Japan would suffer, instead of isolating the damage to two cities. This argument does not go ove

Some common words found in the essay are:
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,

Approximate Word count = 1145
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: History