Category: Atomic Bomb

As the last World War society has ever experienced, instead of causing another war in the future, it created a notorious debate for the historical event. America’s controversial decision to drop two bombs on Japan caused one of the most discussed topics amongst people passionate about WW2 History. Whether the two bombings were justified or not has made others change their minds or keep their original decision. With all the evidence I have gathered, I believe that The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified because they could have stopped Japan in other ways, the bombings were used to scare The Soviet Union more than defeat Japan and the bomb was simply inhumane.

After decades of research, historians believe that Japan was going to surrender which made the bombings unnecessary. Since Japan was almost defeated, they could have forced them to give up on many other strategies. When the war in the Pacific Theater started, Japan surprised Pearl Harbour with a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour. This was around the time when Japan was very powerful and had control of many areas in the South Pacific Ocean. Four years later, America successfully fought back using a creative idea. They began a tactic called “island hopping”. With this strategy, The United States Of America would move from different Japanese islands in the South Pacific Ocean. This gave Japan a tougher time because they had to try and defend many lands at once. They were also restricted from going to their other lands which gave The United States a huge advantage. Japan could not properly fight back and this would have led Japan to eventually give up. Another option was for Japan to keep its emperor. Of course, he would have to be demoted to a powerless figurehead (much like the Royal Family in Great Britain), but it was possible that this one condition alone might have been enough to satisfy the American War Department’s conclusion that it was necessary to convince the Japanese that they would not be “annihilated” if they surrendered. The United States knew that if they killed the emperor, Japan would never surrender. This plan, however, was already considered by the American government. Their plan was to get Japan to understand their message and eventually surrender. On June 13, former American ambassador to Japan Stimson and Byrnes, Truman’s personal advisor debated their plans with Japan’s emperor. Byrnes won and Truman created excuses that left Japan confused about their intentions. Even though this did not give Japan a clear answer, it was a proper attempt to figure out their decision. Instead of continuing, they dropped the bombs, the Japanese surrendered, and The US allowed the emperor to live. Stimson later revealed that prolonging their decision was a major regret. He also added that because of this, prolonged the war and caused what we know to be Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The last alternative was to wait for the Russians to attack Japan.

Military analysts in 1945 believed that Japan would have to inevitably be forced to surrender and a clarification from the Americans that “unconditional surrender” did not mean they would kill their emperor. In the early weeks of April, they believed that The Soviet Union would satisfy their necessities in many ways. By September, they believe that the majority of Japan will realize the inevitability of absolute defeat regardless of whether the Soviets have actually entered the war against Japan. If The Soviet Union enters the war, Japan will realize that its defeat is unavoidable. A Strategy and Policy Group within the War Department had the same opinion. Americans also had an idea of Japan’s opinion on this topic. While breaking the Japanese diplomatic code, The United States eavesdropped on conversations between the Japanese Foreign Minister in Tokyo, and the Japanese ambassador to the Soviet Union in Moscow. The Foreign Minister said that they should not only prevent Russia from entering but also get them to perceive Japan as a favorable country and to talk to any Soviet leaders if they had the chance.

The ambassador said back that there wasn’t much reason to hope, and that he received reports of substantial Soviet troop and supply movements heading the east. The Foreign Minister also added that if Russia decided to take advantage of their weakness and intervene against them they would be completely homeless. In a secret meeting between Roosevelt and Stalin, he promised that three months after the end of the European campaign, he would declare war on Japan and move against Japan in China. By July, when President Truman traveled to Germany to meet his Allied leaders for the first time, he met with Truman and Stalin on the 17th. He confirmed they would declare war on Japan on August 15. To sum it up, the President and at least some Japanese all had the decision that if The Soviet Union invaded Japan, they would have most likely surrendered. The date was set and the invasion was scheduled to happen. The Americans had many other options but chose to land two atomic bombs. This argument is why many people, including me, believe that my next reason is their true intentions in releasing the two atomic bombs.

Throughout the war, America’s intention seemed to be clear, however, this was questioned after details of an important event were overlooked. During the war, the United States and the Soviet Union fought against Germany, Italy, and Japan. As the war came to an end, the US and the Soviet Union met and discussed how to handle the end of the war and the defeat of Germany. These conferences caused a rift in the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States. The reason that this conference is important is that it shows the conflict that Stalin, Churchill, and Truman had at the time. Each side would not trust either and this would affect their decision-making in the future. Stalin was also irritated because the other allies believed that they delayed the Normandy Invasion and Allied invasion of Italy during the current war to cause the Soviet Army to struggle against Nazi Germany. Throughout these conferences, Truman told Stalin about the American atomic weapons program also known as The Manhattan Project. Truman also notified him about the US’s development of the world’s first atomic bomb. Truman also became suspicious of Stalin’s intentions, however, Stalin felt the same way about Truman as well. Days after, the US bombed Hiroshima and WW2 ended a few weeks later. These events are what debaters believe to be what affected America’s true intentions with the bomb. With all this conflict, The United States used this to frighten The Soviet Union and show their potential power towards them if they decided to attack or threaten The US. With all the events that lead up to the bomb, the conflicts during The Conference may have been the reason that many innocent people died.

Can it ever be morally justifiable to use ‘terror tactics’ in warfare? In this paper, I will be evaluating the morality behind the use of ‘terror tactics’ or terrorism, including traditional terrorist acts and the use of terror in circumstances such as interrogations. Throughout modern history, terror has been used in a variety of different circumstances, such as the French Revolution, the 9/11 attacks, and the US invasion of Iraq, following different purposes. In this context, philosophical questions such as What terrorism is? and Can it ever be morally justified? have drowned philosophical attention. Most people agree that the act of terrorism itself can never be justified, even though, when resorting to it leads to positive outcomes, some claim it can be morally justified. In the end, it is all reduced to the principle of double effect to question morality: “when it is morally permissible to act in the pursuit of a good end with the full knowledge that the action in question will also bring about bad results”. In this paper, I will briefly discuss the definition of terrorism, to then go into the morality behind the use of terror. For this, I will first address the thesis of philosophers such as Nicholas Fotion and Per Bauhn, evaluating terrorism with considerations to its consequences exclusively (analysis known as consequentialism) and the act itself (non-consequentialism).

After this, I will analyze the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War, using it as an example to show that the use of terror tactics can be rarely morally and tactically justified. Then, regarding the use of terror in interrogations, I’ll explain why this one is rarely successful, considering different testimonies and scientific researchers, to then continue discussing the main arguments of my counter-theory with references to the philosophies of Michael Walzer and Virginia Held, who morally justify the use of terror under certain conditions. Finally, I will offer my own opinion on the topic, concluding that the use of terror tactics in warfare is, most of the time, morally unjustifiable. What is terrorism? Several attempts have been made, in situations such as the UN’s General Assembly, to make the countries agree on a definition for terrorism. However, all of these attempts have failed, as all countries define it differently, for their convenience, not wanting to recognize that they have used terrorism.

They justify their actions by claiming terror was used as a means for liberation, that their enemies are ‘terrorists’, that terrorism has to be done by non-state agencies to be considered as such, etc. Furthermore, an issue arises when considering the complicity of the victims, as they may be considered innocent or non-innocent depending on the perspective. For example, Osama Bin Laden blames the whole US population for the atrocities committed by the US army, as they pay taxes that finance their actions and are represented by Congress, which backs up the actions of the army. So, according to his perspective, the 9/11 attacks did not target innocent civilians, and therefore, under the definitions that classify terrorism as the use of violence against innocent civilians, he didn’t lead a terrorist attack. A more recent example is the US designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. No such announcement as the one made by President Donald J. Trump has been previously made in the US, so even though the implications of this announcement are not clear, it is inferred that they are justifying the use of terror tactics against Iranian forces, as they are now fighting against a group they formally recognized as a terrorist. From this perspective, the terror tactics used can’t be classified as terrorism as they argue, not only, that there is no such thing as state terrorism, but they are fighting a terrorist group instead of innocent civilians, even though civilians may be affected in the process. So, as many definitions of terrorism are influenced by our political perspectives, for the sake of the argument, the morality of the use of terror tactics will be evaluated under the most common definition of terrorism: “violence against innocent civilians or common citizens intended to intimidate and thereby to achieve some further objective, or more broadly, to coerce”.

First of all, considering the consequences of terrorism, this one can be very rarely justified. According to Nicholas Fotion, terror tactics can be justified when “(1) the end sought is good enough to justify the means, (2) the end will indeed be achieved by means of terrorism, (3) the end cannot be achieved in any other way that is morally and otherwise less costly”. Analyzing the use of terrorism throughout history, with hindsight we can see there is almost always a less costly alternative to achieve the same aim, and that many times there is no certainty the means will indeed achieve the aim. Therefore, until now, the use of terror tactics is uncommonly justified, as supported by Fotion. Additionally, as stated by Per Bauhn “freedom and safety are fundamental.. therefore (they) must be accorded paramount weight. This implies, that not in a single case, terrorism is justified, as it violates the most fundamental rights.”. In other words, there are no rights more relevant than freedom and safety, so placing these ones at risk for other causes, using terrorism, can never be justified. This links with Stephen Nathanson’s idea that “adopting civilian immunity… is the best way to reduce the killing and destruction in armed conflict”, and that this is in the greatest interest of us all, as “it is in our self-interest to deny that it can ever be justified to kill people like you and me”. Moreover, terrorism can be rarely morally and tactically justified at the same time. Some may argue that under certain conditions, terrorism can be morally justified if it also is the only or the best terror tactic that can be applied.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for instance, serves as an example to prove that this rarely occurs. As known, in August 1945, during the ending of the Second World War, “the United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki… [that] killed 129,000 – 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians”. Even though the event is classified as terrorism under the vast majority of the definitions, the US claims it isn’t, as there is no such thing as state terrorism, and that the bombings were the only way in which the war could be ended with, as it coerced Japan to surrender. Additionally, many of their army officials and political authorities, considered the civilians killed were not innocent as they were complicit in the war effort. So, they consider their actions morally justified as they served a greater purpose, ending with the war, their actions were tactically justified as their aim was achieved, and they didn’t attack completely innocent civilians. But, analyzing the situation to a deeper extent, we know Japan was severely weakened in the final stages of the war and incapable of inflicting any serious damage on the Allies. In this context, the US could have looked for other ways to achieve its central aim; forcing Japan to surrender, didn’t imply such massive collateral damage as it was the killing of approximately two hundred thousand Japanese civilians. Among other possible outcomes, we can consider throwing the atomic bombs into the sea, to show the Japanese the power they had and coerce them to surrender, continue with the conventional bombing at military targets, and, if all of these didn’t, invade the territory, which was an option that would’ve implied several deaths of soldiers, but it would not have involved the deliberate killing of innocent civilians.

Summarizing, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki show us how terrorism is in most cases morally unjustifiable, considering war tactics. Furthermore, the use of terror tactics such as sleep deprivation and physical torture to obtain information, shouldn’t be morally justified. In the first place, torture is dehumanizing, treating people like objects, and ends up being a mental issue. As described by Eric Fair, an ex-US army officer that served in US detention centers, the use of torture for interrogations consists of “removing an individual’s humanity”. Considering all humans have equal rights, and among those, the right to life, liberty, and self-determination are classified as fundamental, the act of torture itself is immoral. Additionally, the use of terror tactics in interrogations severely damages the mental health of the people involved in the process, “increasing suicide rates of military officers in charge of carrying them out.” So, everyone involved in the process ends up being a victim. Furthermore, as confirmed by Eric Fair, the vast majority of the people tortured don’t have information or simply make stuff up to stop being tortured. A study carried out by Shein Massage, Professor of Experimental Brain Research at Trinity College Dublin, concluded the “assault that occurs during torture damages the parts of the brain you want to access”, which is the one of information recall. This is why, as stated by studies done by various militaries and specifically the US, torture is regarded as inefficient and it is used mostly to introduce fear in the population. So, torture can’t ever be morally justified if it doesn’t result in the obtaining of key information to prevent humanitarian disasters.

On the other hand, many people claim the use of terror tactics can be justified when resorting to it is in the best interest of the population, or in other words, “when not resorting to it implicates paying an extremely high price.” This claim is commonly used by states such as the US, arguing that the use of terror tactics in interrogations, for example, allows them to stop terrorist attacks over the worldwide population from happening. Resorting to terror has indeed resulted in the discovery of relevant information during a war, as stated by several military officers, among which we can find Eric Fair. In this way, Kant’s categorical imperative is challenged, as we can’t say the use of terror tactics is always immoral, and rather each case should be assessed individually. Additionally, Michael Walzer sustains terrorism may be used in situations of supreme emergency, in which a particular community is under the threat of extermination. Linking his idea to the ones previously mentioned, we can say he considers the ‘extremely high price’ to be the threat of extermination exclusively. Similarly, Virginia Held sustains “terrorism is justified when it is used to protect a certain right that is not being respected, by infringing the same right”. When these requirements are met, as supported by the philosophers mentioned, the use of terror tactics can be morally justifiable as their use leads to a greater good.

Nevertheless, considering that terror tactics may be morally justified in particular occasions, for the benefit of a great majority, the argument has several weaknesses. Firstly, regarding Michael Walzer’s findings, defining a ‘state of supreme emergency’ can be very difficult and subjective. Countries may announce a ‘state of supreme emergency’ to comply with their interests, and therefore justify the use of terror. For example, some Venezuelan leaders can currently argue their country is undergoing such a phase and claim that the use of terror is morally justified, as the Venezuelan culture is under great threat due to violent political rivalries, massive flee of citizens outside their country, and food and supply shortages. The former government may therefore justify the use of terror in front of the international community, using Michael Walzer’s philosophy, even though the vast majority of this community agrees that Venezuela is going through a democratic crisis and that the violence implemented by the state is seriously harming the citizens without achieving to control the critical situation lived. In the second place, once the use of violence has been approved, it may be difficult to limit the extent to which this one has been applied. We can exemplify the previous situation using the purges of Stalin’s government, as many historians argue that the Russian SS started by eradicating Stalin’s biggest political contenders and placed at risk the stability of the country and the government, but it ended up killing millions of otherwise innocent civilians as the situation got out of control. This relates to Virginia Held’s justification of terrorism, as she recognizes we can’t assure that the rights the enemy has been inflicting will be the limit for the rights that are going to be inflicted. So, considering her justification of terror tactics, we might say it can’t be applied in practice, as it’s impossible to assure the limits are going to be respected.

Additionally, regarding the use of terror tactics during interrogations, the fact is that even though some relevant information has been obtained through these methods, this one is minimal, as the information obtained can’t always be relied upon, and the great majority of the victims have no information (as backed up by the ex-military serving in Iraq, Eric Fair). Even Napoleon once said, “torture produces nothing worthwhile”. Considering this, it would be deeply immoral to interrogate someone using terror tactics without being sure they have relevant and trustworthy information in their hands. Less aggressive and more successful methods can be used when it comes to interrogation. An example of this is the work of Hanns Scharff, a German interrogator during WWII. He was considered the best interrogator of that time, according to Germany and the Allies, and he didn’t use coercive methods in his interrogation.

To summarize, it will be immoral to justify the use of terror when a beneficial outcome can’t be assured and when there are other less violent alternatives to achieve the same objective. In conclusion, the use of terror tactics may be morally justified in particular occasions, such as when resorting to it is the only option to solve a conflict that is putting a large number of innocent civilians at risk and when we can assure that the use of terror will indeed achieve our aim. Otherwise, we would be using terror with no justifiable final purpose. The problem is, that in reality, it is very difficult to assure that the final aim will be achieved if terror tactics are used. Moreover, in most of the cases, such as discussed when analyzing the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are less aggressive options to tackle the same problem in an effective way. So, even though terrorism may be morally justified when is the only available option to secure the interests of our population, in practice, we know we can always find different paths to resolve an issue, that will probably cause less harm and will not make the enemy seek revenge, resorting to widespread use of terror tactics. Additionally, it is virtually impossible to limit the extent of the atrocities committed through the use of terror tactics, when committing such atrocities is allowed. Furthermore, considering the act itself, the use of terror degrades the human race and places all of us at risk. This is why, in my opinion, although we can justify the use of terror tactics on some occasions, when applied on the right occasions and to the right extent, following strict control from the authorities, they have enabled some countries to prevent some atrocities from being committed. But, in the vast majority of situations, terrorism can’t be morally justified as we can find less aggressive and sometimes more effective alternatives to resolve the issue in question.

Bibliography

1. Primoratz, Igor, ‘Terrorism’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL.
2. BBC World Service, Torture, The Why Factor URL https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04qx89l
3. Nielsen, Kai. On the Moral Justifiability of Terrorism (State and Otherwise). Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 41, Number 2/3 (Summer/Fall 2003) art. 14, pages 430-437. York University. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1420&context=ohlj
4. Big Think, Michael Walzer on Just War and Terrorism. Published on April 20, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOfS3IIqP0M
5. Gaouette Nicole (2019), “Trump designates elite Iranian military force as a terrorist organization”, CNN Politics, April 8. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/iran-us-irgc-designation/index.html
6. Wikipedia contributors, ‘Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,’ Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki&oldid=895607944 (accessed May 6, 2019).

Social movements are groups organized to attain a common objective. The main goal of these movements is to bring transformation, resist change or be a political voice for marginalized individuals in society. These movements are structures that enlighten the oppressed individuals to resist being taken advantage of by the powerful and successful elites (Menocal, 2016). They emerge when people are unhappy about a political policy or a social change. Consequently, individuals start mobilizing groups to start campaigns, rallies, unrest, and demonstrations against the change. Through these actions, they create rapid formalization and success in gaining political power. There are four types of social movements namely; reformed, revolutionary, redemptive, and resistance social movements. Below is an in-depth analysis of the anti-nuclear movements.

The anti-nuclear movement is a social movement that opposes various nuclear technologies such as nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The antinuclear movement commenced in the late 1950s in the United States of America during World War II. The trigger for the emergence of these antinuclear movements was the invention of the atomic bomb in 1945 (Tarasova, 2017). They included both solidarity protests and organized groups of all sorts in defiance of the use of nuclear weapons in world war and the cold war. It involved individual protests that were carried out by residents. The antinuclear movement affected U.S. politics as they were resisting the use of nuclear weapons due to their effects. They also disputed the cold war militarism and confine their leaders from using nuclear weapons because their safety was undetermined.

The major anti-nuclear groups that emerged in the USA to oppose nuclear weapons and energy use included Campaigns for Nuclear Disarmament, Friends of the Earth, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Peace Action, and Nuclear Information and Resource. These social movements’ goals entailed not only emphasis on peace and environmentalism but also intellectual social activism.

In America, it consists of more than 80 antinuclear groups were formed to oppose nuclear power and weapons usage, and uranium mining (n.a, 2016). Some of the major revolution social groups that emerged include Abalone Alliance, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Nevada Desert Experience, and Women Strike for Peace. These anti-nuclear movements pressurize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with much success in slowing the construction of nuclear plants. Besides, it has committed to enforcing and reforming the safety regulations of such nuclear power stations.

The U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (in Japan) in 1945 created a strong public antinuclear movement. Scientists emerged at the forefront to inhibit military control in atomic energy use as a military weapon. As a result, the foundation of Federation American Scientists (FAS) was founded. In 1961, less than 50,000 females were arraigned together by Women Strike for Peace. They demonstrated in the major cities of the USA against the usage of nuclear weapons. Consequently, another movement in 1979 emerged protesting against the Three Mile Island accident.

Similarly, in 1982 another antinuclear movement broke out. It involved about one million protesters in the USA’s capital city, New York. The main reason for the revolt was to stop the cold war arms race and the use of nuclear lethal weapons. However, this emerged as the largest social movement in the history of America. Barely a year after this protest, a nuclear disarmament movement sparked out in West Berlin with at least 600,000 demonstrators.

Another antinuclear uprising emerged in May 2005, these movements had approximately 40,000 Protestants. Later after a year, another antinuclear movement occurs which was made up of around 25,000 demonstrators that urged for the disarmament of nuclear weapons (Cooper, 2013). It is evident from the above series of antinuclear movement formations that social movements do reoccur.

Social movements have an impact on the social-political transformation of society. For instance, the antinuclear movements made the government reduce the usage of nuclear arms in the 1980s and blocked the establishment of power plants. Also, it committed the government to devise ways to manage radioactive wastes. The other effects were formulation and use of alternative sources of energy. Also, in the 1990s, the impact of the demonstrations led to the compensation of cancer victims as a result of the atomic bombing.

From the sociological perspective, several theorists have come up with models to explain the reasons for the formation and existence of social movements. For instance, functionalist, conflict, and interactionist theories can explain these phenomena. To begin with, functionalist theorists view society as a complex system whose parts are interrelated and work together as a whole (Eder, 2015). This theory focuses on why social groups are formed, the reason they reoccur, and the social puzzle they will solve. Concerning the antinuclear movement, it occurred several times, conflicting between the government and the society, and involved the continual renewal of their aims which agree with major features of functionalist theorists.

Conflict theory on the other hand as presented by Karl Marks asserts that social movements occur when powerful individuals oppress the less privileged in society thus advocating for a balance of power (Martin, 2015). Those in possession of power and resources do anything to protect themselves and resources while those less disadvantaged groups on the other hand will try to halt them or try to obtain those resources. In the anti-nuclear movement, the conflict theorist arouses due to the government possessing nuclear weapons and the establishment of nuclear plants the matter against which the citizens were.

Interactionist sees behavior as an interactive product of individual and situation (Eder, 2015). The perspective of this theory is that individuals shape and are shaped by society. It thus argues that the individual is an active and conscious piece of social context rather than a passive object in their environment. Social movements occur as a result of human interaction. For instance, antinuclear demonstrations occurred as a result of human interaction and mobilization.

In summary anti-nuclear movement is a social movement that brings people together to protest and oppose the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. These movements are aimed to promote renewable energy that is friendly to the environment. They started after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they intensified during the cold war to date the protest has pulled a large number of people who have supported it (Wittner, 2010). These have led to a decline in nuclear plants globally.

In my opinion, social movements like the antinuclear movements have a great impact on society since they oppose or support actions that lead to better life and utilization of some sources which bring no harm to society. The antinuclear movement should be supported by the government and other agencies by allocating funds, and recognition days. The effects of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy power plant accidents are not only fatal but also painful to the economy and complications that are lifelong such as cancers, trauma to those exposed, and cause radiation to the environment that is hard to clean. Therefore, in my own opinion, antinuclear movements should continue and be supported.

The first reason why the dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan should be justified is that Japan continued on its aggressive attack even though there were many warnings of the United States during World War II. After Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy in 1940, they began in earnest involved in several battles and colonized many countries, taking advantage of them. Before World War II, 1939 to 1945, Japan already achieved its goal to conquer China and Manchuria, the beginning of the war in the European Theater provided a chance for Japan to extend its horizons because the Allied power was more concentrated to fight against Germany at that time. Triggered by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States intervened in the war in the Pacific actively, and the aggressive attack on Japan did not stop. In 1941, the Japanese launched seven attacks at the same time, in Malaya, Thailand, and the Philippines, and many Allied naval forces were defeated due to Japan’s strong advance in Southwest Asia. Because Allied power could not expect that Japan had powerful naval forces and a strong ambition to dominate Southeast Asia for political and economic reasons, the United States and Great Britain had to make a decision to stop their aggression and a further attack on Allies, which was the atomic bomb.

Japan’s aggressiveness in the battle was nothing compared to their act of cruelty that showed in many massacres against Southeast Asian countries. The Nanjing Massacre, as known as the Rape of Nanking, from December 1937 to January 1938, killed a massive number of Chinese citizens in the city of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War. Under the order of Matsui Iwane, a general of Japan, the Japanese soldiers perpetrated mass executions of innocent Chinese citizens and tens of thousands of rapes. Furthermore, they burned down all the towns and the city, destroyed everything they had, made Nanjing the capital of their Chinese puppet government. In total, estimated ranging from 100,000 to more than 300,000 Chinese people were killed and raped by Japan. Not just in China, but also there was another massacre in Manila, Philippines, that was committed by Japanese troops in February 1945, and it is considered the most horrifying tragedy in the Pacific theater. Countless shooting, bombing, ravening, torturing, and killing were subjected Filipinos, approximately 100,000 civilians in Manila were killed indiscriminately and deliberately. Through that massacre perpetrated by Japanese soldiers, they proved themselves that they killed unnecessary lives of people first. The arguments of Japan was that too many innocent people died from a nuclear bomb in Hiroshima, but they committed the war crimes of killing and torturing innocent citizens, just for fun, and I think they deserved to lose a massive number of people, as they did to citizens in Philippines and China.

Even though the claims have existed that Japan already showed signs of surrender, I do not agree that Japan would surrender if the United States did not drop the bomb in Hiroshima because Japanese soldiers never surrendered without an order due to excessive loyalty to their country. The code of Bushido, the samurai code was existed by Japanese soldiers from the 1900s with the publication of Nitobe Inazo, “Bushido: The Soul of Japan”, and Japanese soldiers viewed this as an admirable code of chivalry. This code of Bushido encouraged soldiers in Japan to fight eagerly for his country, and it had become a byword for Japan’s suicidal tendencies and military cruelty. In the same vein, the Japanese military had Kamikaze, the Japanese pilots who made deliberate suicidal crashes into enemy targets, usually ships. The kamikaze planes contained light bombers with them, and the Japanese soldier did not hesitate to kill and sacrifice themselves, even they thought it is an honor to destroy the opponent’s ships, kill the enemy, and die a glorious death in the battle. From the code of Bushido, the Japanese soldiers have deeply planted the idea of sacrificing themselves, and rather kill themselves than surrender to enemies. I think the Japanese soldiers would continue to fight until they die and would bring much more casualties if the United States did not drop the bomb in Hiroshima.

Before deciding to drop the nuclear bomb on Japan, the United States and Allied power already gave them a warning for their aggressive actions, and if they surrendered before the United States throw the bomb, that many innocent people did not have to die. On July 26, 1945, the Potsdam Declaration, an ultimatum issued by the U.S., Great Britain, and China, called for the unconditional surrender of Japan. At this time, Germany had already surrendered to the Allies, but the war continued in the Pacific theater as Japan remained committed to fighting. Responding to this, the leaders of each country discussed and delivered their warning to surrender, including complete disarmament and creating a responsible government. However, the Japanese Prime Minister responded “tokusatsu”, which mean “no comment”. Even after they decided to drop the bomb in Hiroshima, they gave a final warning to people in Japan in order to save as many innocent citizens in Japan. LeMay leaflets, suggested to the citizens in Japan to give the petition to their emperor to end this useless war, cease the military resistance, and evacuate from their cities. However, all of this effort went crumbled to dust, and I think the United States had no other options to end the useless war in the Pacific, responding to the aggression of Japanese military power.

On the 6th, August 1945 an atomic bomb called ‘Little Boy’ was dropped in the center of the city Hiroshima, Japan. By the USA in World War two, it killed about 80,000 people immediately and heaps more after, it had the effect of 1,500tons of TNT. To this day, atomic bombs are known as the deadliest weapon ever invented and were first invented by Albert Einstein.

Atomic bombs were invented by Albert Einstein before WW2, Einstein published his theory in 1905 this caused many different countries all over the world to try and put his theory into practice, amongst all of these countries Germany was one of them and since Einstein was a refugee from Germany, living in the USA he was afraid that they would use his theory, so he decided to send a letter to Harry S. Truman, USA president at the time, to make an atomic bomb before Germany (nazi’s) did. The USA took this into consideration and decided to make this deadly weapon. When the USA did their first experiment bombing on the 16th, July 1945 in the New Mexico desert at dawn, it melted and destroyed anything nearby, even onlookers 10,000m away felt the effect of the bomb and were knocked off their feet. The experiment bomb had the effect of 19,000 tons of explosives and was even hotter than the sun.

Once the USA had made the bomb ‘Little Boy’ to drop on a Japanese city, they had to decide where and when they were going to drop it. They settled on the date of 6th August 1945 the city was decided on the morning of the dropping as it was the best weather conditions on the day. For weeks before the bombing there had been a weather plane flying over every day, this was very convenient as Enola Gay (plane containing bomb) could fly over the city of Hiroshima and drop the bomb and the citizens there would not be worried until they saw a bomb falling from the sky. Before the bomb was dropped the USA offered Japan to surrender they declined but didn’t know what was going to happen, after the bombing in Hiroshima the USA offered Japan to surrender again, once again they declined so the USA decided they would drop another bomb, this bomb was called ‘big man’ and was dropped in the city of Nagasaki, Japan did surrender this time and on the 14th August 1945 Japan made it public that they had surrendered to World War 2. In total from both bombs, there were around a total of 200,000 deaths and both cities were near demolished.

When the bomb left the plane by the pilot Colonel Paul W Tibbets, it was aimed at the Aioi Bridge, which is in Hiroshima’s city center, when the bomb hit the ground and exploded, it instantly killed about 80,000 people and over the next few weeks, months and even years people would die of radiational poisoning, wounds, and leukemia, in the city itself 90% of the buildings were destroyed and demolished. The bomb had wind of about 1584km per hour and reached 5000oC

Sadako Sasaki had three other siblings, one sibling was older and the other two were younger than Sadako, although her younger siblings weren’t born when the bombing accord. When Sadako, Masahiro (older brother), Mrs. Sasaki (Sadako’s mother), and grandmother were going out for the day when the atomic bomb was dropped, Sadako’s grandmother went back into the house to retrieve some family air looms, they never saw her again. Everyone except their grandmother was not injured in any physical way, or so they thought. When the bomb was dropped Sadako was 2 years old, 10 years later she started getting dizzy at times and started to get symptoms but didn’t tell her family or even her best friend. The dizziness got worse and worse, so bad that she was at school one day and felt dizzy and like she was going to faint, this happened, and she woke to her school friends and the teacher surrounding her. She was taken to the Red Cross Hospital where she got diagnosed with Leukemia. She spent the next few months in the same hospital.

Soon after Sadako had gotten leukemia and was admitted into the hospital her best friend told her the folklore about the creation of 1000 paper cranes and then a wish will be granted, Sadako thought about this and decided that she would try and make 1000 paper cranes so she will get well and overcome the disease, she only made 644 paper cranes but she is one of Japan’s most told stories because of her hope, kindness, and determination when she was alive. after she died her friends from school were very upset and felt like they needed to do something in her memory of her and in the memory of all of their other friends who were killed because of the bombing, so they decided to form a unity club to raise money, this grew very large and donations came from 9 foreign countries around the world. With this money, they decided to build a statue in memory of all of the children who had lost their lives because of the atomic bomb. On the 5th May 1958 (children’s day) the Children’s peace monument was finished and opened.

Sadako Sasaki was an extraordinarily strong girl, even though she didn’t make the whole 1000 she was incredibly determined to. She died in October 1955 when her family by her, but she lives on to this day, with the telling of stories about her inspiring story, and through the building of the Children’s Peace Monument in Hiroshima’s city Centre, traditionally on children’s day, people make paper cranes and place them around the monument in memory of Sadako.

Introduction

America’s decision to use two atomic bombs at the end of World War II on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been an intense subject of discussion for years after the incident. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are one of the best-known historical events in history, though at the same time provoking enduring, fervently heated reactions. The aim of this research paper is to examine the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents, investigate the causes, meanings, and implications of the bombings.

History of Hiroshima

Hiroshima’s early history dates back to the 6th century when some of the first Shinto shrines were erected on Hiroshima Bay (Cÿ, 2005). Modern Hiroshima was founded in 1589, meaning ‘big island’ (Cameron, 2005). The city’s many canals and wharves made importing goods from the countryside easy, while all parts of the growing metropolis were connected by its bridges. Hiroshima had become such an important base for the Japanese military that they temporarily relocated the Imperial Headquarters there.

Summer 1945

The time was the summer of 1945, the U.S. and its allies were at war with Germany and had just concluded peace (Mishler, 2008). Even the U.S. has been at war with Imperial Japan since the 7 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor (Mishler, 2008). America had a very important decision to make during the War in Japan. One option was to drop a newly tested bomb on the Japanese in hopes of getting them to surrender swiftly. The latter choice was to have an invasion of Japan by mass land and expect to fight it with complete force. No matter what option was chosen, it was known that there would be a substantial amount of casualties.

Once President Roosevelt died on 12 April 1945, Vice President Harry S. Truman became President (Foundation for Constitutional Rights). At this time, President Truman attempted to fill the spot occupied by President Roosevelt for twelve years. Truman was forced into a position he was not really prepared for and into an administration that effectively worked without his input (Kort, 2007). Unfortunately, Roosevelt had never included his vice president in the atomic bomb debates. Two weeks after becoming president, he was eventually thoroughly briefed on ‘the device,’ as General Groves called the Bomb (Foundation for Civil Rights). War Secretary Stimson took on the primary task of filling in President Truman on the specifics of the Manhattan Project, which Truman had not heard (Kort, 2007).

According to Kort (2007), the Manhattan Project was led by a variety of scientific discoveries in the 1920s and 1930s. Hitler had steadily risen to power in Germany during this time of scientific innovation, and physicist Leo Szilard and fellow Hungarian Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller became worried a long time ago (Kort, 2007). They agreed that the U.S. President would be told of the latest fission technologies that had been developed, which they claimed could produce bombs. The three physicists enlisted the aid of the leading scientist of the time, Albert Einstein, and together they drafted a letter addressed to President Roosevelt (Kort, 2007). Albert Einstein’s famous letter of 1939, drafted by physicist Leo Szilard (who was named Humanist of the Year some twenty years later), persuaded President Roosevelt to launch the Manhattan Project, describing their belief that nuclear fission ‘would lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable that extremely powerful bombs of a new type could thus be built’ (Milam 2010).

The mixture of the fall of France to Germany in 1940, the belief that Germany was ahead in the atomic bomb race, and the bombing of Pearl Harbor soon influenced Roosevelt that this atomic research had to do something more (Kort, 2007). Roosevelt assigned his top security advisors to form committees on this project quickly and to determine what to do and how to do it. By the end of 1942, bomb research had become a bomb assembly, and the military now managed the Manhattan Project (Milam, 2010).

The Bombing

Henry L. Stimson, the war secretary from 1940 to 1945, would influence the critical decision of President Truman on whether to invade or attack Japan (Sherwin, 1995). The U.S. Army Air Forces B-29 Enola Gay dropped a uranium gun-style weapon codenamed ‘Little Boy’ on the city of Hiroshima on the morning of 6 August 1945 (Military History, 2009). On August 6, 1945, some 350,000 people were living in Hiroshima, Japan. Around 140,000 died that day, and over the next five months (Military History, 2009). Masses of blackened, bloodied, skinless corpses drifted in macabre places in the Kyuohotagawa and Motoyasugawa rivers. Long lines of shuffling figures–clothes burned right off the body; hair standing on end or singed off the scalp; skin peeling and dripping off arms, legs, backs; hands outstretched, zombie-like–were all wandering blindly after the bombing (Military History, 2009). This hellish scenario was carried out in absolute darkness because the mushroom cloud, the black rain carrier, and eternal destruction, had transformed the day into night and modern technology into the greatest nemesis of mankind (Military History, 2009).

According to Cameron (2005), after the Bombing of Hiroshima, President Truman issued this statement in reference to the use of a new weapon and promising the following:

“If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.”

The Emperor did not respond and three days later, the B-29 Bockscar levels much of Nagasaki with a plutonium implosion-type device code-named “Fat Man” (Military History, 2009). It’s estimated that the second bomb on the Japanese city of Nagasaki on August 9 claimed another 80,000 lives (Military History, 2009). The same day, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Hirohito said that “continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation.” He then declared that Japan must accept surrender (Constitutional Rights Foundation).

Interpretations

There are various views related to the use of the atomic bombs and their rationalization. The nuclear attacks on Japan were justified in an effort to win the war with the fewest casualties possible. Some believe that because Japanese soldiers were known for their vicious fighting styles, the invasion of Japan would have led to American casualties in the hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions (O’Connor, 2010). Additional explanations include that the US spent almost 2 billion dollars developing the bombs and those costs needed to be justified (O’Connor, 2010).

Even for their swift demolition, the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki bombs were extremely inefficient. Only one of the fifty kilograms of uranium present is detonated in “Little Boy” the affectionate nickname given to that weapon of mass destruction by those responsible (Milam, 2010). Hiroshima could have been even more horrifying than it was if one dares imagine. After all, the “best minds in the world” were feverishly working on these projects (Milam, 2010). Ironically, Einstein later became a peace activist and days before his death signed Bertrand Russell’s 1955 Russell-Einstein Manifesto along with ten other esteemed scientists and intellectuals (Milam, 2010). It begins with the words:

“In the tragic situation which confronts humanity, we feel that scientists should assemble in conference to appraise the perils that have arisen as a result of the development of weapons of mass destruction.” It ends with the oft-repeated phrase: “We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest (Milam, 2010).”

Secretary of war, Stimson, later revealed that the decision to use the atomic bomb was in part intended to satisfy the doubts of that rather difficult class of community which will have charge of the education of the next generation, namely educators and historians (Sherwin, 1995). He also wrote that the sole motivation was to save American lives by ending the war as quickly as possible (Sherwin, 1995). What he failed to discuss were the Japanese messages intercepted by the United States military intelligence indicating that the Japanese had been trying to surrender “conditionally” since June of 1945 (Sherwin, 1945).

Consequences

The effects of the bombings were massive on all levels. The lives of the Japanese were forever affected. Tsutomu Yamaguchi, then a 29-year-old ship engineer with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, was walking to the company shipyard in Hiroshima when Little Boy, the world’s first strategic atomic bomb, detonated in midair less than 2 miles away (Military History, 2009). The blast knocked him unconscious, burst his left eardrum, and burned his upper torso. Three days later, back home in Nagasaki, Yamaguchi was recounting his story to a skeptical boss when Fat Man, the second strategic atomic bomb, exploded over that city, also less than 2 miles away (Military History, 2009). The shock wave knocked both men to the floor and tore off Yamaguchi’s bandages (Military History, 2009). The engineer spent more than a decade recovering from his physical injuries. His wife and infant son escaped the Nagasaki explosion with minor wounds, but the family was plagued by poor health. His son died of cancer in 2005 at age 59 (Military History, 2009). Yamaguchi is now formally recognized as a double-hibakusha (“explosion-affected person”) and has become a vocal proponent of nuclear disarmament (Military History, 2009). “The reason that I hate the atomic bomb is because of what it does to the dignity of human beings,” Yamaguchi explained to The Times. “Having been granted this miracle, it is my responsibility to pass on the truth,” (Military History, 2009).

According to Cameron (2005), 226,598 officially certified survivors of the atomic bombings are still alive in Japan today. The actual number of hibakusha is likely much larger, as many could not meet the strict and sometimes subjective qualifications for certification, while others have left Japan. The average age of these witnesses, however, is now seventy-three. Most have been struggling with radiation-related illness for much of their lives, and death will surely have silenced the majority of them by the seventieth anniversary of the bombing in 2015 (Cameron, 2005).

Then fourteen-year-old Akihiro Takahashi remembers waiting to go into his classroom then waking up with burns all over his body. He made his way to the river to try to extinguish his burning flesh (Cameron, 2005). His physical suffering had only begun; he now must visit a hospital daily for hour-long treatments for liver cancer and the admission that he worries every day about his health (Cameron, 2005).

In addition to the health-related effects endured, there were also international effects of the atomic bombings. World War II came to an end and a peace treaty was formed between the United States, Japan, and forty-eight nations (O’Connor, 2010). Creators of the bomb had not received the feelings towards the bomb that they predicted and the scientists soon came to the conclusion that this bomb should not be used (Cameron, 2005).

Conclusion

The decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan was one of the most controversial issues of the twentieth century. The bombings will continue to remain a heated debate for many years to come. The exact strength of mind for the use of the atomic bombs will never be fully understood and the same question will be asked time and time again, “Did it have to happen?”.

At 8:15 AM on August 6th, 1945 the first-ever nuclear weapon used on a human population was released above Hiroshima, Japan. There was no scale to describe the energy and destruction of the blast, the explosion was unprecedented. Three days later a second bomb exploded over the city of Nagasaki, Japan (Fenton). Almost a month later, the Japanese surrendered. The war on the Pacific front was over. Nearly a month before the bombings, US President Harry S, Truman was notified of the first successful nuclear detonation in Alamogordo, New Mexico. The Second Great War had raged for nearly five years before the United States decided to use a weapon that had the potential for destruction of all life on earth. Many people have different viewpoints regarding the decision to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some argue that the bomb should not have been used, while others say it had to be done. Though there is still dissension regarding the use of the atom bomb on Japanese soil during World War II, it was necessary to bring an end to a gruesome World War.

A study conducted by UCLA made a conservative estimate that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took 225,000 lives total almost instantly, most of which were innocent civilians (Hiroshima and Nagasaki Death Toll). This is why the bombing of Hiroshima faces many ethical concerns. It indeed did end the war on the Pacific front, but over a hundred thousand lives were taken. Some people died as an instant effect of the bomb, others died slowly due to the radiation of the bomb. If the war would have raged on, the number of fatalities would have been far more. More soldiers would have been killed and ultimately there would have been more deaths. The bomb did have a large number of fatalities, but the number could have been much higher. This number is only a fraction of the 6 million Jews killed in concentration camps that were supported by Japanese soldiers. Major actions had to be taken in order to decrease the death toll and end the war. Before the bombings, the United States dropped leaflets to 33 cities across Japan, warning them that their city may be bombed in the near future. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended up being the 2 cities chosen to be bombed. Although the cities were warned, almost everyone did not take the warnings seriously. These warnings were not fair due to the fact that the number of potential cities to be bombed was too broad. The warnings should not be used to justify the bombings, but more citizens could have evacuated if they would have taken the minor warning they received seriously, especially in cities such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were nearly obvious targets.

On December 7th, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. An attack on American soil. This ultimately caused the United States to enter WWII. Later in the war, the United States decided to drop the bombs because they thought it would bring the war to a speedy end. Many people wonder if the use of the atomic bomb was necessary. The bomb saved lives that would have later been lost in warfare. Some people still argue that the atomic bombs were not the reason that Japan surrendered. Japan was willing to fight down to their last soldier regardless of the consequence. Some soldiers of the Japanese army were known as “Kamikaze” or suicide bombers. They would willingly fly their airplanes into US structures and aircraft carriers. It was considered an honor to be a Kamikaze in Japan because it meant that they showed great pride in their country. Kamikaze missions caused major losses to US aircraft carriers and convinced the United States of Japan’s overwhelming desire to avoid defeat (Douglas). After the war, the United States made it a priority to rebuild the destroyed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The blast delivered from the bombs was powerful enough to break windows 15 kilometers from the center. 4 kilometers from the center buildings were charred, 3 kilometers showed fire and blast damage, anything with 2 kilometers of the center of the blast was nothing but ash. The bombings killed 34 percent of people, including 800,000 civilians and a total of 3.1 million people. Since the bombing, US aid has fully rebuilt both cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Roberson). The United States and Japanese governments are on good terms. The US did not drop the atomic bomb without consequences. After the war, the US entered a power struggle with Russia. This was a dangerous situation due to the fact that both of these countries were recognized as the world-leading superpowers, they had very strong economies and even stronger military’s. This power struggle is known as the Cold War because no military hostilities occurred. The atomic bomb triggered the “Arms Race” with Russia over who could build the most lethal nuclear weapons. Americans were frightened of Russia over this time period. The US of the atomic bomb also led to the Cuban missile crisis, a situation that occurred whenever Russia had long-ranged nuclear missiles pointed at the United States from Cuba.

Although the war ended, the US still faced trouble due to the bomb. Although the Cold War could be considered a bad result of the bomb, wise negotiations and meetings took place between the United States and Soviet Russia there was not one bullet fired during the war. Both countries realized the ruin that would occur if a nuclear war broke out (Bahmueller). One positive of the Cold War is that it pressured the United States in the space race and ultimately put a man on the moon. Russia launched the world’s first satellite “Sputnik” on October 4th, 1957. This was an unpleasant and scary surprise to Americans. Sputnik was followed by the United States’ own satellite with “Explorer 1”. In April of 1961, Russia’s Yuri Gagarin became the first man to orbit the earth. After that, the United States John Glenn orbited the earth in February 1962. The space race ended on July 20, 1969, when US Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon (Space Race). The United States would likely have not been the first to put a man on the moon without pressure from the Russians and the Cold War. A lesson can definitely be learned from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Everyone can agree that there does not need to be another event like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapons should be taken very seriously. This being said, countries manufacturing or attempting to make nuclear weapons must be monitored closely. There is a strong privilege that comes with the ability to access nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon in the hands of the wrong person can cause mass destruction. Sadly, history has a reputation for repeating itself, and this event does not need to occur again. Nuclear weapons have come much farther and more advanced since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These weapons are now even more dangerous to the existence of mankind on earth. Nuclear wars should be avoided at all costs. Nuclear weapons should be considered a worst-case scenario weapon to every country on earth. As lethal as the weapons are, the United States was left with no other choice than to use the bomb and end the war. They also showed that if such tragedy were to happen, it is possible to repair the bonds of the countries and that cities can be rebuilt.

Ray Bradbury was one of the most talented American authors in his career. Living until 91, he left readers amazed by his writings, letting his own personal experiences sway the themes of his novels. He experienced events that formulated his strong opinion of technology, which he feared would someday overpower society. His works hint at the dangers of the atomic bomb, its sole purpose being to destroy human life. Many of his works are focused around the theme of technology and its benefits and disadvantages. Two of these novels are Fahrenheit 451 and Dandelion Wine.

The effects of the atomic bomb on society during the 1950s that Fahrenheit 451 and Dandelion Wine were written in led Bradbury to incorporate the theme of technology influenced by the atomic bomb, in and out of World War II, into both of these novels. Formulating a personal opinion of technology and what it could do to the world at a young age influenced the writing of many of Bradbury’s novels. Bradbury is quoted as telling Playboy in 1996, “‘I saw six people die horribly in an accident. I walked home holding on to walls and trees. It took me months to begin to function again. So I don’t drive. But whether I drive or not is irrelevant. The automobile is the most dangerous weapon in our society—cars kill more than wars do’” (Conradt). This event happened when Bradbury was 16, so he formulated this opinion about technology from a young age, which only further developed throughout his writing career. He expresses that he fears technology in the hands of the wrong person. “‘I’m not afraid of machines. I don’t think the robots are taking over. I think the men who play with toys have taken over. And if we don’t take the toys out of their hands, we’re fools’” (HuffPost). He was afraid of what negative effects technology would have on the world if placed in the hands of someone that did not know the dangers of it. Finally, Bradbury feared technology in terms of war. He is quoted saying, “‘We must move into the universe. Mankind must save itself. We must escape the danger of war and politics. We must become astronauts and go out into the universe and discover the God in ourselves’” (13 Ray Bradbury Quotes). He held a strong fear of war, and war tactics such as the atomic bomb.

Without these strong opinions about the negative effect that technology would have on the world in the future, Bradbury would have never written such compelling novels warning us about the dangers of it.To portray a nation-wide fear of technology during the 1950s, Ray Bradbury included negative elements of it into Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury writes about an atomic bomb being dropped, destroying the technology-reliant city that Montag and the others of the city had been trapped in. Once the bomb drops, they march back towards the city to rebuild it better than it was once before. Bradbury’s idea of this is that nature is more important than technology, and it is shown after the city is destroyed and Montag is starting over. Bradbury writes, “And on either side of the river was there a tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month; And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (Fahrenheit 451 158). By including this quote on the last page of the book, Bradbury connects nature to time and healing. He uses the tree to symbolize the months of the year and the time it will take for nature and life to fix the city the way it should be, without the technology. By including the city bombing and Montag aiming to fix it and rid it of the technology it once was controlled by, Bradbury gets the message across to readers that they need to have the same positive outlook and overcome their fear of the atomic bomb. With the fear of the atomic bomb rising, Americans began to fear new technology in general.

Bradbury incorporates this fear of new technology into Fahrenheit 451 with the Mechanical Hound. The Mechanical Hound’s original purpose was to rescue people, but the government programmed it to go after citizens who go against the law. After Montag chooses to live the old way of life, with books, the Hound is sent after him. “After all the running and rushing and sweating it out and half drowning, to come this far, work this hard, and think yourself safe and sigh with relief and come out on the land at last only to find… The Hound!” (Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451 137). Montag has been running from this technology, because he is one of the few that realize what a danger it poses to their society. By including these negative aspects of technology in society and how the people of the book react to it, Bradbury represents a nationwide fear of technology in the 1950s.Like in Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury added negative elements of technology into Dandelion Wine. The first example of this is Leo Auffmann, who expresses his disliking for technology to his family. “‘Invent us a happiness machine!’ The men laughed. ‘Don’t… How have we used machines so far, to make people cry? Yes! Every time man and the machine look like they will get on all right- boom! Someone adds a cog, airplanes drop bombs on us, cars run us off cliffs” (Bradbury, Dandelion Wine 33). In a society that is based around growth of technology, Leo is not quick to trust it. He has his suspicions, and he voices them clearly. He shows fear of the new advances, reasoning that they kill people. Bradbury’s intent of adding this in was to show that the people of the 1950s feared new technology and how it may harm them.

Another example in Dandelion Wine is when Miss Fern and Miss Roberta are scared of The Green Machine, a seemingly perfect new electric car. They question its liability when they say to the salesman, “It couldn’t– that is…It couldn’t electrocute us accidentally?” (Bradbury, Dandelion Wine 92). Because this technology is new and potentially dangerous, the sisters are skeptical about it. This shows how the people of the 1950s felt about new, dangerous technology, especially the atomic bomb. Shortly after in the novel, the sisters accidentally run over a neighbor, while The Green Machine trots on at its 15 mile-per-hour smooth ride. “There was a terrible thud. The Green Machine sailed on in the hot daylight, under the shady chestnut trees, past the ripening apple trees. Looking back only once, the two old ladies’ eyes filled with faded horror” (Bradbury, Dandelion Wine 94). The wording of this quote shows how the technology is dangerous, because it has no conscious, running over a man and the continuing on into the day. After this happens, the two sisters debate getting rid of The Green Machine because of its danger, but settle with just not using it. This shows how Bradbury views the atomic bomb and how people react to it, because while people are scared of it, they recognize the danger of it but do not do anything to stop it. Bradbury connects the characters’ fear of technology with the fear of those living in the 1950s with a fear of the atomic bomb.Bradbury is quoted in saying, “I don’t try to describe the future. I try to prevent it” (Moore). He speaks through his characters in his novels to express his views on technology and the atomic bomb, as well as what it can do to society if it is not prevented. In Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury expresses one view through Granger:

Have you ever seen the atom bomb mushroom from two hundred miles up? It’s a pinprick. It’s nothing. With the wilderness all around it. My grandfather ran off the V-2 rocket film a dozen times and then hoped that someday our cities would open up and let the green and the land and the wilderness in more, to remind people that we’re allotted a little space on earth and that we survive in that wilderness that can take back what it has given, as easily as blowing its breath on us or sending the sea to tell us we are not so big. When we forget how close the wilderness is in the night, my grandpa said, someday it will come in and get us, for we will have forgotten how terrible and real it can be. (Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451 150)

By choosing to have his character say this in the book, Bradbury expresses an extremely important opinion. He is saying that we have forgotten how terrible advancements can be, that technology is causing people to destroy wilderness. He argues that one day destroying the wilderness will come back and cause us a great deal of trouble. By expressing this opinion through his character instead of just saying it in an interview, Bradbury paints a picture in our minds to go along with a real possibility. Another example of this is the Happiness Machine in Dandelion Wine. The Happiness Machine was used to make people happy again, but when it burned, Leo realized that he did not need the machine to be happy. After the fire, Leo says, “‘The last thing you learn in life is you’re the same fool… I’ve done a lot of thinking… You want to see the real Happiness Machine? The one they patented a couple thousand years ago, it still runs, not good all the time… but it runs. It’s been here all along’” (Bradbury, Dandelion Wine 62). Leo realizes that he does not need a machine to be happy, that the greatest happiness is his family. Bradbury is voicing his opinion through his character by showing that technology can tear a family apart, but all you need is your family to be happy. The final example of this is in Fahrenheit 451. Montag walks in to his wife, Mildred, sleeping with little “Seashells” in her ears. The Seashells are a device that goes in her ears while she sleeps, playing ocean sounds directly into her head. “Every night the waves came in and bore her off on their great tides of sound…There had been no night in the last two years that Mildred had not swum that sea” (Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451 10). Mildred relied so heavily on technology to do such a simple everyday task for the last two years, and that’s what Bradbury is trying to get through in this quote. Bradbury is criticizing society’s reliance on technology, even for as simple a task as sleeping. By expressing his own personal opinions on technology and how it affects society through the dialogue of his characters, Bradbury creates a stronger argument linking his thoughts to substance.Ray Bradbury’s novels Fahrenheit 451 and Dandelion Wine are both written around the theme of technology and how it affects a society. During the 1950s in which these were written, a national fear of the atomic bomb was spreading throughout America, and Ray Bradbury used these feelings as a motivator for his own characters. With a fear of technology and the atomic bomb in the back of his mind, Ray Bradbury wrote two amazing, intriguing novels.

The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and 9th on 1945. These weapons were designed by American theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his six colleague scientists. Two distinct types of atomic bombs were developed Oppenheimer and his team: ‘Little Boy’ a uranium-based weapon and ‘Fat Man’ a plutonium-based explosive. The outcome of these bombs resulted merely in horrific casualties and devastation. The controversial debate notices that whilst the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki positively helped the war conclude faster, it can be argued as morally unacceptable by society as many innocent lives were lost from the two attacks.

The first atomic bomb that the American B-29 bomber deployed on Hiroshima wiped out 90% of the city; instantly killed 80,000 people and proceeded to take 55,000 more lives in the following days due to radiation poisoning (George, 2019). The second bomb was then dropped three days later, killing a total of 74,000 innocent people. Majority of these lives were ended by severe burns, lacerations and crushing damage from falling debris and collapsing buildings. Later, claims addressed that the bombing was unjustified as Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria had already surrendered, leaving Japan with no allies. Additionally, the Japanese navy was almost depleted, the surrounding islands were under naval blockade and the city of Japan was under continuous concentrated air attacks (Combs, 2019). Majority of these deaths were on innocent civilians; all the American’s accomplished was destroying the lives of children and families and causing disheartening long-term effects from the bombs’ aftermath.

An atomic explosion powerfully releases immense amounts of thermal energy and extensive heat. The heat of which can ignite ground fires and incinerate the entirety of a small city; the blast destroyed buildings from several miles of explosion. These widespread affects detrimentally effected the lives and lifestyles of innocent Japanese civilians. A report from a young sixth-grader who was unfortunately present during the bombing recalls “Bloated corpses were drifting in those seven formerly beautiful rivers”, smashing cruelly into bits the childish pleasure of the little girl, the peculiar odour of burning human flesh rose everywhere in the Delta City, which had changed to a waste of scorched earth. Chaos of widespread rubble, debris and hollowed out buildings were the results for the surviving victims. The surrounding environment become a nuclear waste field, where nothing could grow or be safe to live as there was too much radiation. The citizens of Japan were forced to clean-up and rebuild their city from the ashes; scavenging any unburned materials, as they had no resources or allies being war torn. Japan was forced to recover both physically and economically, for over a decade the Japanese were clearing the rubble and attempting to rebuild; it took approximately fifteen to twenty years for viable cities to be restored in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The $2 billion yen that was spent on restoration enlisted a large economic burden on the country.

Not only did the bombing pose devastating short-term torment, it had numerous unfavorable long-term effects due to the spread of radioactive material. Cancer rates among the fortunate survivors were 44% higher in comparison to rates previously in the town. Additionally, there was added risk for almost several decades post related to the radiation exposure surrounding the area. Higher rates of miscarriages and infant deaths were experienced by women exposed to the bombs. Whilst, the surviving children were more likely by 28% to have intellectual disabilities and impaired growth, as well as the increased risk of developing cancer.

Justification by the US for using the atomic bombs claims it was indeed necessary to end the world war and get Japan’s surrender. But was not Japan already defeated, and were they not already on the verge of surrender?

Truman, the US president at the time was well aware of the Japan’s situation as he received a telegram from the Japanese emperor asking for peace. Instead, the USA bombed Japan because they had lost 418,000 lives, both military and civilian and could not afford to lose more. The top rank in the military stated “many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan” from this it is gathered that bombing Japan was more effective and easier. Thereby, they were selfish and inconsiderate of the innocent Japanese lives that were going to be lost due to their thoughtless decisions, as they cared precisely only to reduce American casualties to zero. Of which the US achieved their desired effects by causing maximum devastation to another country, leading to the Japanese surrender. However, was concluded after World War II that the atomic bombs were unnecessary, “the Japanese’s position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air”, – stated Henry H. Arnold, commanding general of the US Army Air Forces, Pacific Flee. Hence, Japan would have surrendered prior to the bombs’ designation, even if Russia had not entered the war, or if the invasion has not been planned or contemplated.

Commander in chief of the US Pacific Fleet, Chester W. Nimitz claimed: “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bombs played no decisive part from a purely military point of view in the defeat of Japan. The use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender”. This statement was made by American, who realized the use of atomic bombs violated basic human principles and caused inexcusable pain and torment for generations; an unjustifiable act that cannot be reconciled.

The atomic bombing was unjustifiable by the US as it was unnecessary to end the war and not only were many innocent people killed, it posed lifelong health implications, economic burden and unnecessary physical restoration. Additionally, the cost for the bombs’ development cannot be justified at a waste of almost $2 billion US.

President Harry Truman determined to release nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the optimum decision of circumstances that supported the surrender of Japan in World War II. Many arguments will doubt the atomic bombs had made results any better. While, the other handful of individuals, supporting Truman’s authorization, have considerable justification. Toss away the reasons for disagreement and contemplate the motives that lead descending atomic bombs as the right choice of weapon.

A few years prior to the war of America and Japan, there had been a compliance with trade. America had transported quantities of oil, tin, and rubber to their ally. Japan relied heavily on these goods which sustained the many assaults toward their enemy of the 1930s. Uneasy it was for the Western hemispheres to support such a violent country, so the final declaration was to embargo these exchanges. Deprivation of imports consequences the Eastern hemisphere’s disruption of war. Principally adding new tensions between the allies. The infamous surprise attack of Pearl Harbor, led by Japan, began World War II. Once allies, now becoming terrorist to the United States.

Obliterating multiple American navy ships, appalling citizens, the unsuspecting victims of pearl harbor had taken the first blow. Historically writing the abundance of losses of warships and lives that day. This event allows a minimal understanding that rationalizes the importance of an action that required a new plan. An eye for eye. A popular law of retaliation, vengeance, many American citizens commonly agree why it was tolerable to dispatched the atomic bombs. Now given reason, the ‘allies’, had started the first assaults that would lead to our own.

Aside from the desire for justice, the fission bombs were still considered the bitter end. The cause for concern explains why there had been controversy. Concerns that lead to rough environmental changes. After the bombing, the radiation impacted the remaining civilians of Hiroshima health. This is understandable knowing the little boy and fat man had been profuse with the strongest chemical such as uranium and plutonium. Powerful enough to blow a house window 100 miles away. Imagine how this affected the atmospheres. Regardless, the aftermath of war had and will always leave remarkable bruises to the earth and her atmosphere.

The controversial weapon had made its powerful recognition, but calculates a total amassed of possible ways to weakening it with only two explosives. Addressing a new inquiry. Could there be a possibility, war would have expanded further without any involvements with the atomic bombs? Fortuitously, Japan had not stricken twice when attacking pearl harbor. However, a mistake on their part, knowing the characteristics of this hostile country was a great asset. From multiple experiences of battle of midway, battle of Okinawa, and many more of the pacific theater there had been useful knowledge of the enemy. Invisibility, loyalty, dedication, sacrifices, and strongly determined, it indicated the enemy was unstoppable.

There would have not been any usage of the atomic warheads provided the Japan had not been so pertinacious. Willing to dedicate themselves to an oath. This tradition of honor had been taught to enemy forces centuries ago. Therefore, heritating an honoring code for their homelands that led to their death. Fighting forces had their strategies, one being kamikaze. This alone foretold, the value of some soldier’s life did not matter. Making this war between the allies a difficult one.

Battles would have been endless and result without any prosperity. The atomic bomb has done its best to help shorten the war. Weakening Japan’s strength and materials leading their country to mass destruction. Perhaps the bombs saved more lives than what it had taken. On the contrary, the first bomb had not made Japan any closer to surrender. Which gives a con of the failure of a resolution to stop the warfare the first time.

Fat man detonated in Nagasaki for the last time of the year 1945. The outcome resulted for Japan’s emperor, Hirohito to intervene between his country and ours. Noting this was the only convincing action that Hirohito would finally accept defeat. Giving a statement Emperor Hirohito announces: “I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer” (Robert Trumbull, ‘A Leader Who Took Japan to War, to Surrender, and Finally to Peace’).

In closing, even an enemy had seen the nuclear subversion. With an understanding level of less bloodshed, this was another reason the bomb was the difficult revolution, but prevented any further war between America and Japan.