Category: Atomic Bomb

The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of the most controversial events in modern history. Commentators discussed whether bombs mattered, what the end result of the Pacific War would be, and other options for America.

These same questions were discussed at a time when American leaders were choosing how to use powerful new technologies and what the long-term impact of atomic weapons on the Japanese was (Hasegawa 96). This essay is an argument as to why the US was justified in using the atomic bomb against Japan.

Most of the commentators who participated in the debate over the end of World War II focused on why the US decided to drop the atomic bomb. Although much attention was paid to this event, little attention was paid to what the Japanese did to end the war.

Even less information is available about Soviet decision making and their participation in the war against Japan. One of the main problems that has recently been overcome is the lack of a historian who is fluent in English, Japanese and Russian so that he can investigate important cases, including government information, military, education and news in general. three languages. This explains why most of the available literature on the subject is on the American side of history.

One of the reasons why it was not necessary to bomb Japan was because the US had other options, they were able to force Japan to surrender. In his landmark 2005 study, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa examines the relationship of the three wars between America, Japan, and the Soviet Union.

What emerges from this careful study is the fact that the Americas had other options they could use with the bombs, but they chose to ignore them. According to Hasegawa (100), Soviet leader Joseph Stalin warned America that he would attack Japan on August 15, 1945.

This meant that the US had until August 15 to force Japan to surrender to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war, which would weaken Truman and his government. Contrary to the claim that the Americans used the bomb as a last resort, Hasegawa disagreed and said that the first day of August was chosen to prevent the Soviets from entering the war.

In fact, Hasegawa’s careful research disproves the idea that the bombings weakened Japan’s position when they were carried out.

According to the historian, the myth that the bombs weakened Japan’s will to fight and rescue Japanese and American soldiers was necessary to pass Truman’s decision and help ease the conscience of the American people. According to Hasegawa, this story has no historical support because there was enough evidence to show that there was an alternative to using bombs, but Truman and his administration chose to ignore it.

Historians say that Truman’s main concern was that allowing Stalin to enter the war would be a great strategic advantage for him, and it would be a serious threat to American interests in the region. With the deadline to strike expired, the only option left to Truman and his administration was to use the atomic bomb (Hasegawa 101).

Although Japan has not yet publicly announced its intention to surrender, those inside understand that the country cannot continue the fight and surrender is inevitable.

This admission is contained in intelligence reports that show that Truman was aware of the news that Japan had abandoned its goal of victory and was considering how to reconcile its national pride with defeat in the war. Based on these types of information, it is clear that there was no reason for the Americans to use the bombs, since it was only a matter of time before the Japanese admitted defeat.

The second reason why the US bomb is not justified is because of the completely false claims. Be that as it may, the actual number of American and Japanese lives that may have been lost during the invasion is said to be unknown. However, those who supported the bombing appear to have increased their estimate of possible casualties from the previous estimate of 45,000 given by the US War Department.

In a 1991 address to congress, George Bush claimed that Truman’s decision to drop the bomb ‘spared’ millions of American lives. Four years after the claims by Bush, a crewmember of Bock’s car, the plane that dropped one of the bombs stated that the bombing preserved the lives of over six million people.

Over the years, historians have provided evidence to show that the casualty figures offered by Truman and his bombing supporters were seriously flawed. One historian claimed that the people who supported the high casualty claims relied upon strained readings and omitted crucial material, which in effect limited their research and cast a shadow of doubt on their findings.

Hasegawa and other anti-bombing historians did not refute the claim that Truman was concerned at the possibility of America losing many lives during the invasion, but the projected numbers were way below the exaggerated figures provided after the war to rationalize the bombings.

Such inflated figures, along with Japan’s presumed rejection of surrendering is usually a part of the debate on why the atomic bombs were necessary but from the proffered evidence, these claims are highly questionable.

Another reason to prove that the bombing was not justified is derived from looking at the real reasons why Japan surrendered. According to political analysts, postwar interviews with numerous Japanese military and civilian leaders showed that Japan could have given in before November 1, which is the date that the U.S. had planned to invade the country.

This was not because Japan was afraid of atomic bombs or the impeding Soviet entry but because they had no reason to continue fighting in a war, which they were certain to lose. This conclusion definitely supports the view that the bombings were not in any way necessary to end the war and their use was therefore unjustified.

Historians project that given the huge impact that the Soviet entry into the war and the air-naval blockade imposed by the Allied forces, there is a high possibility that Japan would have surrendered before any invasion since its resources to support the war had dwindled. Historians question why Truman was not willing to avoid the costly invasion of Japan by allowing the Soviet entry instead of dropping the bombs.

The question of Truman and his administration not knowing about Japan’s intention to surrender does not arise since historians have discovered records showing that Truman was in possession of intercepted and decoded Japanese intelligence communication, which showed their willingness to surrender.

As Hasegawa (110) rightly put it, if Truman and his ilk really wanted to desist from using the atomic bomb as it was claimed after the war, then why was the intelligence reports in the intercepted cables ignored? According to the historian, stressing the decisive role of the atomic bombs in ending the war was meant to weaken the importance of soviet entry into the war thus making inconsequential the Soviet role in ending the war. This was meant to display the super weapon that was only possessed by the United States.

Conclusion

The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9, 1945) is still one of the most debated topics in modern history. According to most historians, the bombings were unjustified because there were other available options to end the war but they were ignored.

Contrary to the claim that Americans used the bomb as a last resort, most historians disagree and claim that the early August date was chosen to counter the Soviets’ impeding attack on August 15, 1945. This ensured that America got the credit for ending the war.

The United States of America dropped the world’s first operational atomic bomb above the Japanese city of Hiroshima at 8:15 a.m on the 6th of August 1945. It was carried to its target by the United States Army Airforce (USAA) B-29 bomber Enola Gay, flying from the American airbase on the Pacific island of Tinian. Nicknamed ‘Little Boy’, the bomb exploded with the equivalent force of over 12 Kilotons of TNT. Around 5 square miles of the city was reduced to ashes, with over 60% of the total building stock destroyed. Within four days of the blast, 120,000 civilian inhabitants had died, many of the civilians were instantly vaporised by the explosion. Three days later, at around 11 a.m on the 9th of August, another B-29 bomber from the Tinian airbase dropped the second operational atomic bomb on Nagasaki. This bomb was nicknamed ‘Fat man’ and had a similar impact to the Hiroshima bomb, approximately 2.5 square miles of the city was laid waste, and over 70,000 people killed as an immediate result of the blast. Imperial Japan announced unconditional surrender on the 15th of August and formally signed on the 2nd of September 1945, ending the Second World War.

Nuclear Fission occurs when a nucleus of a heavy atom splits through natural radioactive decay or instigated in a controlled environment by absorbing a neutron, producing two smaller nuclei and releasing a lot of energy.

In 1909, Austrian physicist Lise Meitner and German chemist Otto Hahn partnered together in Germany to study how different substances produced different types of radiation. In 1934, Italian physicist Enrico Fermi discovered that if you bombard atoms with neutrons, you can make them undergo radioactive decay, where they release particles and become slightly lighter elements. Meitner, Hahn and another scientist named Fritz Strassmann started their bombardment experiments to try and figure out how these reactions worked.

In March 1938, Meitner having Jewish ancestry, had to escape from Germany to Stockholm, Sweden, where she continued to correspond with Hahn about their ideas and experiments. In November 1938, Hahn secretly left Germany to share some strange results with Meitner. When they bombarded uranium with neutrons, one reaction product looked like radium, lighter than uranium. They thought it was radium because of how it reacted with other atoms and molecules, but they couldn’t figure out how bombarding uranium with neutrons would produce radium.

Hahn returned to Germany, where he and Strassmann studied the radium product from the experiment and found that it was not radium at all; it was barium, a much smaller element about half the uranium’s weight. Hahn and Strassmann could not understand how the bombardment of neutrons could make uranium turn into a whole different element half its size. Hahn kept communicating with Meitner, asking for her help. Meitner being in exile made Hahn and Strassmann submit the paper to a German scientific journal describing their scientific results.

Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch, a nuclear physicist, worked together where Meitner proposed an idea in which she imagined atomic nuclei as liquid droplets. This idea made Meitner realise that when a neutron hits a uranium nucleus, it could make the nucleus stretch out, pinch together in the middle, and then split into two nuclei, just like one drop of water splitting into two smaller droplets. She and Frisch found that the larger uranium atom would split into two lighter elements – barium and krypton releasing a lot of energy along with many neutrons. Meitner discovered Nuclear Fission. Meitner couldn’t publish a paper with Hahn and Strassmann as she was in exile, so Meitner and Frisch published their conclusions in the journal Nature in 1939.

Nuclear Fission has great potential as a source of energy. It is a relatively simple way to produce huge amounts of energy compared to other sources, which is the primary use today in nuclear power plants. Nuclear fission produces two or more neutrons that induce further fissions. This process is known as the nuclear fission chain reaction. It is a self-propagating sequence of fission reactions, which release a vast amount of energy. This process occurs in a proper multiplication environment under controlled conditions (Nuclear Reactors).

Meitner realised that the discovery of nuclear fission had destructive potential, and she warned about this in her journal. Germans knowing the discovery of atomic fission through Hahn and Strassmann alarmed other scientists. With the help of Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard and Enrico Fermi, the physicists in the U.S. wrote a letter to President Roosevelt explaining the danger of weaponisation of this discovery by Nazi Germany. Ironically, all three scientists had Jewish ties and were refugees in the U.S. escaping from the Nazis and the Fascists; therefore, they understood the situation. The President formed a committee and funded Fermi and Szilard at Columbia University to conduct their research in radioactive isotope separation. The name of this committee kept changing, and in 1941, it was named the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD).

An atomic bomb requires an explosive source which needs to be an unstable radioactive isotope of uranium or plutonium. Leo Szilard, a German physicist, was the first scientist to theorise that scientists could use nuclear materials to create energy from self-propagation in nuclear fission.

Natural uranium contains two isotopes, uranium-235 and uranium-238, where uranium-238 is much more abundant. Uranium-238 is not fissionable as it becomes more stable by becoming uranium-239 when bombarded by neutrons. In contrast, uranium-235 becomes more unstable and fissionable by becoming uranium-236 when bombarded by neutrons. The scientists from OSRD investigated four methods: gaseous diffusion, liquid thermal diffusion, electromagnetic separation and centrifuge, to separate the two isotopes of uranium. Fermi and Szilard successfully enriched the uranium to produce uranium-235, the fissionable component. The scientists combined uranium with fluorine to form a gas to filter the extract isotope that they wanted (gaseous diffusion). In 1942, underneath the University of Chicago rugby stadium, Enrico Fermi created the first controlled nuclear chain reaction named ‘Chicago Pile 1’. Meanwhile, supported by the Canadian government and military, Glenn Seaborg was developing microscopic samples of pure plutonium.

The scientists believed that the Nazis were already developing the atomic bomb. President Roosevelt’s initiation of ‘The Manhattan Project’ was to produce an atomic bomb before the Nazis. In 1942, the OSRD formed the Manhattan Engineer District when the Army Corps of Engineers joined the OSRD. Manhattan project was the code name of this military programme lead by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer and U.S. Army Colonel Leslie R. Groves. The project was costly, and it took place over four years in three different locations: Los Alamos, New Mexico, Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Richland, Washington.

The project needed several pieces of research simultaneously in a limited time, such as finding out the exact amount of uranium-235 needed to achieve critical mass. In 1943, many scientists moved to the U.S. to join the project after establishing a combined policy committee with Great Britain and Canada. In 1943, J. Robert Oppenheimer had already begun designing and building the first Manhattan project bombs in Los Alamos, New Mexico laboratory. In 1944, The U.S. started mining natural uranium-238 from the Navajo Nation in Arizona.

The Trinity test, which is the first-ever testing of an atomic bomb, took place on the 16th of July, 1945. The U.S. did this test in Alamogordo, New Mexico, a remote desert location. The scientists did the Trinity test in a controlled environment where scientists could analyse the results remotely from a distance. People felt the heat from the blast 10 miles away and described the explosion as bright as the sun. The Trinity test blast had an explosive power of 20,000 tons of TNT and created a 40,000 feet high mushroom of clouds. The Trinity test bomb was named ‘The Gadget’, and it was plutonium fuelled bomb.

Oppenheimer developed two more bombs, ‘the little boy’ gun-type design with uranium-235 as its nuclear source and ‘the fat man’ was developed with implosion assembly method that used plutonium-239 source. The plutonium core bomb had to use the implosion assembly method due to some issues. The University of Chicago developed the only method for obtaining plutonium-239, which was through transmutation in a reactor pile of uranium-238. The isotope plutonium-239 is ideal for nuclear fission, whereas plutonium-240 has a relatively higher spontaneous rate, lowering the energy for the bomb’s detonation. The isotope of plutonium-240 increases the risk of pre-detonation. For plutonium production, the manhattan project built a reactor on the Colombia river near Washington, the Hanford Engineer Works. The Hanford reactor produced less pure plutonium-239 and had traces of plutonium-240. Physicist Seth Neddermeyer at Los Alamos overcame this problem by incorporating conventional explosives around a central plutonium mass. He thought that increased density would allow plutonium to reach its critical mass; the explosives would ignite and release shock wave that would compress the inner plutonium for detonation.

A single scientist is not responsible for the development of the atomic bomb. Brilliant minds from all over the world joined ‘The Manhattan Project’ to create a weapon of mass destruction against Nazi Germany before they have gained such destructive power for themselves. The Manhattan project had employed nearly 130,000 employees, and its cost was around $2 Million, which, according to this date, is roughly $25 Million. The Allied forces did not use the Atomic bomb against Germany as the allied forces had already invaded France and defeated Germany.

The United States atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary and necessary because of different reasons. The bomb was necessary as it helped end the war a lot faster, and it saved the lives of both American and Japanese soldiers. The bombing was the quickest way to make Japan surrender and end the war. My claim is supported when the article states “Such moral defenses are offered as: the war was shortened and many lives, Japanese as well as American, saved…” (64) Without the bombing the war could have gone on for who knows how long and could have led to more deaths. The bombing was unnecessary because it caused lots of damage, it was mainly used to install fear into the soviet union and japan was almost nearly defeated either way. There could have been another less damaging method to finish off the war. “Alperovitz argues that President Truman willfully ignored Tokyo’s attempts to negotiate a surrender in the summer of 1945 and rejected alternatives to dropping the bomb because he wanted to intimidate and isolate the Soviet Union.” (815) The bombing was used for the wrong reason.

The Atomic Bombing was necessary as it ended the war and prevented the loss of many other lives. Although Japan was almost defeated this bomb ended the war immediately. This is supported when stated, “In order to end the war in the shortest possible time and to avoid the enormous losses of human life which otherwise confronted us…” (63) The bomb was the fastest way to end the war effectively. If the United States would have continued with its original plan the war would not have been over until the following year. That leaves a whole year for more deaths and violence. This is shown when the reading claims “We estimated that if we should be forced to carry this plan to its conclusion, the major fighting would not end until the latter part of 1946, at the earliest” (63) If the bomb had not been dropped this war could have gone on for another year causing more damage.

The Bomb was not a necessity because the United States were unsure of the results, it caused unnecessary damage and Japan was very close to defeat. When the US planned to send the bomb they still did not know the outcome of it. As the reading claims “The point is that none of those who produced and employed this monstrosity really knew just how deadly or prolonged these radioactive poisons would be.” (64) They were unaware of all the damage it had the potential of causing, the US did unplanned damage. The bomb was seen as an unnecessary way to end the war because Japan was about to collapse. My claim is supported when the reading states, “Other commentators note that the Japanese were already reeling on the verge of collapse by 1945, and therefore history’s most awful weapons-especially the second bomb, on Nagasaki-were unnecessary to bring the war to a conclusion.” (815) Japan was almost defeated and although the bomb ended it faster, it did so by creating unnecessary damage instead of waiting.

The aftermath of the bomb was that there was a new weapon available for war if the bomb worked successfully as it did. After the bombing, other countries like Germany who were also working on a nuclear weapon would learn that the atomic bomb was a success and continue with their projects toward their own nuclear bomb. This is shown when the book states “From the outset, both British and American planners believed that the bomb, if successful, would not just be another weapon, but the ultimate instrument of destruction…” (815) The United States set forth a new “ultimate” weapon which would continue to be used in wars for the following decades. The bomb also gave the United States power as they were the first to create the atomic bomb. It was claimed to be “The greatest achievement of organized science in history,” Said president Truman after the Hiroshima catastrophe” (63) America had created a new era by making this bomb successfully.

The bomb created large controversy as to whether it was essential or not. It was necessary because it was the fastest way to end the war. Without the bomb the war could have gone on for almost 2 more years, creating more damage and deaths. The bomb was done very carelessly and without knowing the full outcome of it. It created unnecessary damage. It was also unnecessary as Japan was close to defeat, if they would have waited a little more they could have ended the war without the bomb. The Atomic Bomb was a new weapon created by the US that would be used in all of the following wars by most countries.

During World War Two, Harry S. Truman (current president at the time) decided that in order to avoid American casualties by trying to invade Japan, They would need a weapon they could use to destroy Japan and end World War Two. Knowing this they developed the atomic bomb, a weapon that would release nuclear energy that would cause major damage and force Japan to surrender. The president was informed by Albert Einstein that Germany was developing nuclear weapons in a letter known as the Einstein–Szilárd letter this letter was written by Leó Szilárd and signed by Albert Einstein this letter warned Truman of possible german atomic bomb research. From there the U.S developed the Manhattan project. The Manhattan Project was a group of scientists who developed and constructed Americas atomic bombs that led to the destruction of Japan. On August 6, 1945, The first bomb, Little Boy was released on Hiroshima Japan and wiped out approximately 135,000 people. The rest died from the side effects of the atomic energy. On August 9, 1945 the second bomb was dropped, Fat Man. It was released on Nagasaki , Japan and killed an estimated amount of 70,000 people. These bomb cost the U.S nearly two billion dollars and ended world war two. The scientific triumphs were not worth the tragedies of the atomic bomb because even though the triumphs led to more medical knowledge and world war two coming to an end, Japan was destroyed with hundreds of thousands of people dead or severely injured and it cost the U.S. a significant amount of money.

The United States spent around two billion dollars on creating the atomic bomb. This included the research, production, maintenance and delivery system. CNBC says “To determine the cost of one nuclear weapon, you have to account for the costs of their production, delivery systems and maintenance.” In Who Were the Manhattan Project Scientists? By Norwich University shows it was not just one person’s research that went into the design but the work of several hundred scientists who collaborated to design the first atomic bomb. For delivery, they couldn’t use just any airplane. Instead, they had to specifically modify the B-29 bomber Enola Gay so it was strong enough and large enough to support the bomb. All of these things combined cost the United States a significant amount of money.

Overall reported deaths from the bombings were around 140,000 by the end of 1945. Some of the deaths included doctors and nurses of the 42 hospitals that were destroyed. This severely impaired Japan’s ability to care for the injured. Some of the injured were so severely disfigured that families had trouble identifying their loved ones. In Nagasaki, 39.2% of the buildings and houses were destroyed by the bomb. In Hiroshima it was even higher at 67 percent. In the article The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it says, “In Hiroshima over 60,000 of 90,000 buildings were destroyed or severely damaged by the atomic bomb; this figure represents over 67% of the city’s structures.” This shows how much damage was caused by the atomic bombs.

In addition to the immediate impacts of the bomb, there were also long term impacts and effects of the bombs on Japan. Leukemia, thyroid cancer, breast cancer, and lung cancer rates rose higher than in areas not affected by the bomb. It says in icanw.org, “Women exposed to the bombings while they were pregnant experienced higher rates of miscarriage and deaths among their infants… intellectual disabilities and impaired growth, as well as increased risk of developing cancer. ” Because of the atomic bomb more children died, had more disabilities than others and a higher chance or cancer. In the article Psychological Fallout of Atomic Bomb in Nagasaki Dana Yeo it reads, “survivors exposed to acute levels of radiation were twice as likely to exhibit anxiety and somatization symptoms.” People affected by the bomb mad more of a chance to have anxiety and symptoms of somatization, which is the reproduction of multiple medical systems with no organic cause.

Today, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the radiation level is low like it is anywhere else in the world and does not affect humans. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have also been completely reconstructed and look as if they were never bombed in the first place. Though the structural part of those cities were rebuilt, the emotional and mental state of survivors are still impacted today with psychological disturbance. Some people may say that the triumphs of the atomic bomb were worth the tragedy because of the information discovered from the research conducted to construct the bomb and putting an end to world war two. They are wrong because of the atomic bomb, Japan was destroyed with hundreds of thousands of people dead or severely injured and it costed the U.S. a significant amount of money The tragedies of the atomic bomb including Hiroshima and Nagasaki japan being destroyed, many casualties or mental and physical injuries and the significant loss of money.

In 1939, the President of the USA, FDR, was informed by US intelligence that Germany was on her way to making a nuclear bomb of their own. This led to the creation of the Advisory Committee on Uranium, a team tasked with harnessing and weaponising uranium. Based upon the committee’s findings, the US started funding research by Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard, which was focused on uranium enrichment and nuclear chain reactions. The name was changed to the National Defence Research Committee in 1940 and finally the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) in 1941. In the same year, following the Pearl Harbour attack, the US entered WWII on the side of the Allied powers to fight the Axis. The Army Corps of Engineers merged with the OSRD with FDR’s approval, and the project morphed into a military initiative with scientists playing a supporting role. The OSRD created the Manhattan Engineering District in 1942, basing it in NYC U.S Army Colonel Leslie R. Groves was appointed to lead the project. Fermi and Szilard successfully enriched uranium for the production of uranium-235, for use in the bombs. On December 28th, 1942, FDR approved the formation of the Manhattan project to combine these research efforts with the goal of weaponising nuclear energy. Remote research facilities are set up in Washington, New Mexico and Tennessee as well as sites in Canada, for these tests to be performed. Robert J. Oppenheimer was named Director of the Los Alamos Laboratory in northern New Mexico in 1943. He was already working on the concept of fission energy alongside Edward Teller and others. The Los Alamos Laboratory, the creation of which was named Project Y, was formally established on January 1st, 1943. The complex would be the site of testing of the bombs. On July 26, 1945, in a remote desert location near Alamogordo, NM, the first atomic bom was successfully detonated.

The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbour one of the United States’ most important naval bases, this move was a surprise attack from the Japanese as rising tensions between the two nations from Japan’s global expansion towards the east Asian countries meant that conflict was inevitable. This led to america’s immediate retaliation towards the Japanese

According to Charles Maier, a history professor at Harvard university. After the surrender of Nazi Germany, the Japanese would still not agree to an unconditional surrender. There was an option to invade Japan (Operation Downfall) but that would be very costly so the American president Truman was convinced he had no other choice and that other ways to get Japan to surrender would’ve resulted in up to 10 million Japanese lives lost.

The Americans wanted the war to end before the Soviet Union could enter Japan, in a different scenario if Truman had decided to put off the atom bomb option. The war would’ve ended, with herculean levels of bloodshed, then at some point in 1946 Truman would’ve revealed the existence of the bomb to the grieving American public, and the president of the United States would have to explain to thousands of grieving family members and wounded service men that he decided not use it because he thought it was too cruel to drop on the enemy, even after a surprise assault, a global war fuelled endeavours of global dominated, hundreds of thousands of Americans killed and wounded in two scenarios, and years of gruesome firebombing.This would’ve unquestionably lead to the impeachment of Truman

The US had brilliant minds like the Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein with his innovative research and his equation (E=mc2) which accelerated research into the bomb and the ‘father of the atomic bomb’ J. Robert Oppenheimer another theoretical physicist who led the scientific end of the secret Manhattan project to manufacture the first atomic bomb.

After successfully refining the atomic bomb in the Manhattan project, the US tested the first Atomic Bomb successfully in the “Trinity” test site in New Mexico two days after the Nazi Germany surrender.

On August 6th, 1945, after the green light from Truman, the B-29 bomber ‘Enola Gay’ deployed the uranium-core bomb, the Little Boy. It detonated 1828.8 m above Hiroshima and instantly incinerated 80,000 people and devastated most of the city.

3 days later, August 9th, Little Boy is dropped on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 75% of people immediately and 60-70% of the city laid in ruins.

Hiroshima was chosen for it’s opportunity to be studied on for the effects on an atomic bomb on a city and the city had not been targeted by any US forces beforehand, not to also mention it’s military significance

The original target for the 2nd bomb was Kokura, a city which produced munitions for the war. But due to heavy cloud cover, the bomber diverted to the back-up target that was Nagasaki, and dropped the bomb into a valley, sparing much of the city, but still devastating it.

Operation Downfall was the codename given for the Allied invasion of mainland Japan.

Operation Olympic would capture the Southern Island, using the recently captured island of Okinawa as a jumping-off point for the invasion. This would happen in November 1945.

In early 1946, Operation Coronet would commence, and it would capture the Kanto Plain, East of Tokyo. The airbases captured in Kyushu would provide land-based air support to the troops that would storm the plain.

Held near Berlin, from July 17-August 2, 1945, it was mainly addressing problems in Europe but this led to discussions of a Japanese surrender.

On July the 26th, 1945, Truman, Churchill and Chiang Kai-Shek issued the document that outlined the terms of surrender for Japan. The ultimatum stated that, if Japan did not surrender immediately, it would face “prompt and utter destruction”.

The terms of the declaration for Japan were specified as:

The elimination ‘for all time of the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest’, The occupation of ‘points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies’

That the ‘Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine,’ as had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943

That ‘the Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives’

That ‘we do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners’

“The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.’

‘Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.’

‘The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government.’

The Japanese rejected these demands, and reaped the consequences for it with the bombs in August

What immediate and post war effects did the bombs have on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the rest of the world?

The immediate effects of both bombs saw the deaths, between between 90,000 and 146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000 and to 80 000 Nagasaki by the end of 1945 with roughly half off the deaths occur in both cities on just the first day.

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most victims died without any anaesthetic or pain killer. Some of those support workers who entered the city also passed away from devastating radiation. 10 years later more victims began suffering from thyroid, breast, lung and other cancers at far higher rates than what was previously recorded

In Hiroshima 90 per cent of physicians and nurses were killed or injured; 42 of 45 hospitals were rendered useless; and 70% of victims had combined injuries, in most cases, severe burns to skin. For solid cancers, the added risk relating to radiation exposure continued to increase throughout the lifespan of survivors even today, 75 years after the attacks.

70% of all buildings in Hiroshima were ravaged to the ground, and 6.7 km2 of Nagasaki was completely levelled. Pregnant women exposed to the bombs experienced higher rates of miscarriage and deaths amongst their infants.

Increased rates of cancer and chronic disease were also recorded amongst the survivors. Newborns exposed to the radiation from while in the womb had higher rates of intellectual abnormalities and stunted growth, as well as a much higher risk of developing every single kind of cancer known to man.

In Hiroshima, everything in a 4.4-mile radius of the detonation was obliterated.

The bomb had the effect of 20,000 tons of TNT. Surviving animals and humans in the city sustained severe burns, sustained radiation and injuries from flying glass.

In Nagasaki, nearby trees were uprooted, snapped off, scorched or stripped of leaves.

Both cities were extensively destroyed over 67 percent of Hiroshima’s structure were destroyed and in Nagasaki nearly everything with 1/2 mile was immediately destroyed

Temperatures at the point of the explosion reached up to 4,000O C

In a diplomatic sense, the bombs effectively ended the war in the Pacific, and thus ended the Second World War. The bombs caused Josef Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union to ramp up efforts of the USSR’s own bomb project to get their own bomb. This provoked a nuclear arms race, starting after the first Soviet nuclear test, that would last until the collapse of the Union in 1991.

Due to these bombs and the Soviet’s invasion into Japanese controlled, Manchuria that finally persuaded Emperor Hirohito to surrender despite fierce opposition to the decision from military leaders within Japan like Hideki Tojo Japan lost 2.3 million soldiers and an estimated 800,000 civilians in WWII. General Douglas MacArthur, who was made Allied commander, was sent to Japan to oversee its rehabilitation. The country found itself occupied for years by the United States, who introduced democratic reforms.

While many wanted Hirohito to be tried as a war criminal, MacArthur made a bargain with the emperor that included the implementation of a new Japanese constitution and the denouncement of imperial ‘divinity.’ Thus, Hirohito became a democratic figurehead, with the country eventually attaining political stability and becoming an economic leader.

What effects did the bombs have on the rest of the world?

The bombs helped begin the Cold War and the Nuclear Arms Race between the 2 Superpowers after the chaos of WW2: the USA and the USSR.

External sources suggest the bombs were more directed towards the Soviets than Japan, as in, flexing to them of American technological might. However, fact was, the Soviets had known about this from as early as September 1941. Thanks to past endeavours of federal espionage, the Soviets managed to build a bomb of their own just 4 years after the US detonated theirs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nuclear Weapons played a crucial role in the strategic teachings of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the mid-late Cold War years. However, almost all Warsaw Pact guidelines assumed the green light for the usage of “tactical” nukes (bombs with a small warhead), while for NATO, there wasn’t as much of an emphasis on this.

After the events of the cold war, the world was opened to an alarming new time, where any moment the world could quickly be devastated in nuclear war. These days, threat of nuclear war is taken very seriously, as seen with North Korea and the US in their time of tension.

However, thankfully, both the US and Soviet Union saw the use of these weapons as having catastrophic effects on the human race and the world, and as such, they never went to war over such fears.

Introduction

As many as 220,000 people may have been killed in the Allied nuclear attacks upon the Japanese cities of Kiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War. With such a tremendous loss of life, it is right to question whether or not it was a necessary act, given the general success the allies were having in the months leading up to the atomic attacks. This essay will not explore whether or not the atomic bombings were morally justified acts, but whether or not they were the most suitable course of action to achieve the goal of victory against the Japanese, and peace in the Pacific.

The Atomic Attacks as a Pursuit of Unconditional Surrender

It is clear from primary sources that it was certainly the ambition of the development of the atomic weapons to end the war more quickly, and with fewer American lives lost. One memorandum for the US Secretary of War reads:

The successful development of the Atomic Fission Bomb will provide the United States with a weapon of tremendous power which should be a decisive factor in winning the present war more quickly with a saving in American lives and treasure.

The quotation clearly shows that it was the opinion of the writer, a General L.R. Groves, that the bomb would end the war earlier than would otherwise be possible, thereby bringing peace at an earlier date, and that it would save the lives of many American soldiers. However, the language of the source also makes it clear that General L.R. Grove considers the use of the bombs as an ultimately unnecessary act. His phrasing, winning the present war more quickly, shows that he doesn’t think the bombs will be a key factor in winning the war; rather, they would be a factor in winning it earlier. The mindset shown here is that the war is already won, it is simply a question of winning it as quickly as possible, with as few American casualties as possible. It is noticeable that the deaths of as few Japanese civilians as possible does not factor into this logic.

This source can be considered in the light of historical debate. Sadao Asada writes of how even within Japan, the peace movement saw the war as already lost. However, to the martial mindset which was so prominent within Japan at the time, surrender, particularly unconditional surrender, was a grave dishonour. As such, the government was firmly set against the idea of surrender. Asada writes that:

In August 1945 Japan’s peace party made the maximum political use of the atomic bomb to end the war. To them the bomb was ‘a gift from Heaven,’ ‘a golden opportunity,’ and ‘a psychological moment’ to end the war; they saw the bomb as ‘assisting’ their peace efforts and as a means for the military to save face.

We can see from this that the war situation as displayed within Grave’s memorandum was shared by many within Japan. A war the allies were winning, and were going to win. However, despite sharing the view on the current state of the war as Groves, the voices of the peace movement were not being heard. Asada takes the position that in the end, Japan needed ‘external pressure’ in the form of the atomic bombs for its government to decide to surrender. From this historical perspective, it appears apparent that while the decision of the United States may have been proposed upon the basis of ending the war quicker, and with fewer American loses, it may have had the additional effect of strengthening the Japanese peace movement, and as such, saving the lives of Japanese people who may have died if the struggle had continued on for months or even years.

Wilson Miscamble writes of the decision to drop the bombs as one that was necessary to prevent massive loss of life amongst both US servicemen, as well as many Japanese soldiers and civilians. His perspective shows an attempt to assess the bombings both in terms of military viability, and seperately as moral acts. He acknowledges the act as morally grey perhaps even an evil act. He describes the act as ““ Abhorrent, ” for sure, but it must be understood, the least abhorrent as well so as to bring the bloodshed to an end.” This was certainly the perspective at the time. Truman wrote to Roman Bohnen in 1946, stating that:

The Japanese in their conduct of the war had been vicious and cruel savages and I came to the conclusion that if two hundred and fifty thousand young Americans could be saved from slaughter the bomb should be dropped, and it was.

After Hiroshima (August 6), the Soviet declaration of war against Japan (August 8), and Nagasaki (August 9), the Japanese still offered only a conditional surrender (August 10).

With these primary and secondary sources, we can come to some cautious conclusions. At the time of the bombing, it was the clear view of the US Government that deploying the atomic bombs would shorten the war and save the lives of Americans. Additionally, with historical perspectives working with hindsight, it does appear unlikely that the Japanese would have accepted unconditional surrender without the pressure that the weapons provided. When the goal was the unconditional surrender of the Japanese nation, the deployment of the Atomic bombs appears to have been the best military approach; it is highly likely the alternatives may have cost more lives.

The Possibilities of A Conditional Surrender

It does appear as though only the threat of the atom bomb could have forced the Japanese to accept unconditional surrender. During discussions over the surrender, the Emperor Hirohito stated that Thinking about the world situation and the internal Japanese situation, to continue the war means nothing but the destruction of the whole nation. It had taken that level of threat, the complete destruction of the Japanese people, to get the Japanese government to accept the surrender. It seems all too likely that face with only conventional military threat, the Japanese might not have accepted an unconditional surrender, while there was still hope that their cities and people might survive the war.

Yet to consider viable alternatives to the use of the atomic bombs, we must start to assess the conflict through different historical perspectives. Gar Alperovitz writes from a perspective mindful of the many people who lost their lives in the bombing of the two cities. In this, he refers to another historian, John Hersey, who emphasises the importance of viewing the attack through the perspective of individuals, rather than simply regarding it as a perspective. He states:

John Hersey got it right in his book Hiroshima: The atomic bomb was first of all an intimate, personal, highly individual experience. To walk the streets of Hiroshima today is to be forced to recognize the obvious: A young housewife passes, walking arm in arm with an elderly woman, perhaps her mother-in-law; three school children, maybe nine years old, scamper up the road; a tired, aged garbage collector makes his rounds. Such people today remind us that such people then, individuals, were the ones who felt the experience of Hiroshima; and it was a very, very direct one indeed.

As such, we should make sure to fully consider the potential impacts laid out before the Allies before the bombings. While the preservation of civilian life may not have been a primary concern of the Allied powers, it was certainly a concern for the residents in those cities. While the action may have saved American lives, it could have killed as many or more Japanese lives. With this new perspective, we must consider the idea that the Allies deliberately avoided considering options that could have potentially save the lives of many Japanese. If the US had agreed to Japan signing a condition surrender, then many lives could have been saved; although whether or not that would have been an appropriately moral option after the devastation caused by World War Two is a question to be considered outside of this essay.

We must also consider the idea that Western motives may not have been solely based upon the ultimate goal of bringing peace to the region, but may instead have been influenced by a primary desire to fulfil their geopolitical ambitions and reestablish themselves as the foremost power in the region.Alperovitz also considers the historical considerations of Feis:

Feis had been a consultant to three Secretaries of War and had unusual access to the official documents and individuals involved.

His initial position on the relationship of the atomic bomb to diplomacy had been:

It may be also but this is only conjecture hat Churchill and Tru- man and some of their colleagues conceived that besides bringing the war to a quick end, it would improve the chances of arranging a satisfactory peace. For would not the same dramatic proof of West-ern power that shocked Japan into surrender impress the Russians also?

In his revised edition in 1966, Feis concluded:

It is likely that Churchill, and probably also Truman, conceived that besides bringing the war to a quick end, it would improve the chances of arranging a satisfactory peace both in Europe and in the Far East. Stimson and Byrnes certainly had that thought in mind. For would not the same dramatic proof of Western power that shocked Japan into surrender impress the Russians also?

This perspective encourages an idea that the war goals of the allies may have been influenced primarily with political concerns, as opposed to their stated military aims. As such, when making an assessment of the viability of alternatives to the use of atomic weaponry, we should be careful to consider the idea that while certain alternatives might not fulfil some criteria of the Allied declarations; such as unconditional surrender, and the intimidation of the USSR, they might fulfill others, such as the reintroduction of peace across the Pacific and Asia.

With this consideration, we should also consider the idea that the viability of alternatives that did not cover all the intended criteria might have been downplayed, as well as threats elaborated upon. For example, the figures that have been used by many historical perspectives in this essay, with regards to casualties in the event of a conventional US invasion of the Japanese mainland only appear in sources after the two bombings.

Bernstein wrote, No scholar has been able to and any high-level supporting archival documents from the Truman months before Hiroshima that, in unalloyed form, provides even an explicit estimate of 500,000 casualties, let alone a million or more.

While those figures seem plausible with hindsight, it is important to consider that the choice of alternative options may not have been as clear for those making them at the time, with imperfect knowledge.

To properly assess the viability of the idea of mercy and conditional surrender, we must look at how the American government itself considered such an idea. Luckily, we have primary sources considering such a proposal:

It public declaration demanding unconditional surrender] should be hard and firm in the nature of an ultimatum and must not be phrased as to invite negotiation. Otherwise, there is the danger of seriously impairing the will to war of the people of the United States with consequent damaging of our war effort, prolongation of the war and unnecessarily increased cost in human lives…”

We can see from this source that while the American government may or may not have considered the position of unconditional surrender a moral one, or one to guarantee future security, they did see it as a necessary position in order to keep the war effort at home high in morale, and to prevent any slowdown that might prolong the war and claim lives. In this we can see how the offer of conditional surrender might have been a bad alternative to the atomic attacks; if the Japanese had refused, it might have prolonged the war and ended up costing more lives. Although, there is something to be said as to how the source considers the impact of such a political position upon the American mindset as the primary consideration in their discussions, as evidenced by it being the first thing mentioned. The idea of Japan accepting the surrender appears as an almost distant consideration.

Concluding Thoughts

Looking over the evidence of the primary and secondary sources used within this essay, the general assessment is that the use of the atomic bomb against Japanese cities was justified through its comparatively light death toll when compared with the alternatives suggested at the time. However, many of these arguments are based around the concrete idea of the need for an unconditional surrender of Japan. This excludes the viability of a conditional surrender. Even when assessed at the time, it was regarded as impractical due to its effects upon the mindset of the American people, disregarding the possibility of saving the lives of Japanese civilians. While this essay has made no concentrated effort to assess the morality of such a decision, to disregard such a possibility entirely would appear to go against the idea of the war being fought to achieve peace. As such, it appears as though while the Atomic bombings may appear to have been a more practical course than alternatives offered at the time, there remains a question as to whether alternatives disregarded for their conflict with the stated war goals of the United States, such as a negotiated ceasefire, might have held greater or equivalent viability.

On August 6, 1945, an American B-29 bomber dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city Hiroshima. For the Americans, it was a ray of hope. Many believed that dropping the atomic bomb flashed a light and peace was secured. But for the people that were under the atomic bomb, it was a terror. A terror that no one had ever seen before. The atomic bombing directly killed more than 80,000 people in Hiroshima. Even more catastrophic were the atomic radiation related diseases that could not be cured. After four days of initial attack, the United States attacked again on Nagasaki and caused more destruction . After facing the atomic bombing on its cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan had to surrender. And by the time Japan surrendered, it was clear that the bombing was going to impact generations to come. And now almost after the 75 years of bombing, opinions about it are divided. Some believe that everything is fair in war. It was fair for the United States to bomb Japan because it was the only way to secure peace. While others believe that, there were ways in which the United States have dealt with Japan by causing less havoc. This paper focuses on analyzing such two sources that have different viewpoints on measure taken by the United States. The two articles that have different viewpoints are The atomic bombing of Hiroshima: A reasonable and just decision by Montaniel S. Navarro and Applying Taurek’s ‘Should the Numbers Count?’ to (un)justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A combination of historiography and applied ethics by Dr Tits Kimura.

First article mentioned above works mainly to support how the decision taken by the United States was a reasonable one and the best one to promote peace. This article presents that President Harry Truman played the main role in decision making. So, the article’s main goal is to evaluate President’s decision. There are two parts in the article, explaining why the decision was reasonable and why it was a just decision. The article points out that the decision taken by President was rational and sensible by providing the context of the situation. Also, to prove the decision was just it uses Just War Theory and state’s Right to Independence. Firstly, this article provides reasoning to understand how a responsible person should act according to the urgency and the context of the situation. The circumstances under which Truman had to take the decision of dropping the bomb is reasonable. It was during one of the most difficult periods of the history. After winning the war in Europe, the United States was preparing for the peaceful days to come. But Japan on the other hand was continuing with battles and gave no signs of surrendering. So, considering Japan’s hostile nature, President Truman’s decision to do what people of his country believed was a best choice seems rational. The article mentions certain elements of the Just War Theory like Just Cause, Competent authority, right intention, limited objectives, Last resort, discrimination, and proportionality. The bombing of Japan fulfills all these criteria to prove there was the justice of going to war and justice in wartime. It is because United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese forces prior to the American attack. Attack against Japan can be regarded as an act of self-defense. And because the attack against Japan met the criteria of proportionality and discrimination, Truman’s decision is regarded as just.

The article Applying Taurek’s ‘Should the Numbers Count? challenges such viewpoint and implies that United States decision was not reasonable and just. Firstly, this article provides the moral justification because of which it may be thought that using atomic bomb seems reasonable. The moral reasons presented include the possibility of 25000-46000 Americans soldiers being killed. Also, the United States demanded an unconditional surrender from the Japanese side that could have possibly stopped the bombing. Japan’s decision meant that the United States should find other ways to end the war with less destruction of their soldiers. But while considering the options the United States could have become somewhat more flexible with the options. Instead of unconditional surrender, conditional surrender could have been presented as an option. After years of war, any country and its people will probably feel humiliating to surrender unconditionally. Secondly Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the ideal place to attack. The bombing could have been done in the military areas by harming a smaller number of civilians. Lastly, the number of people that were affected were too high. If the percentage of American soldiers killed and people killed during the atomic bombing are compared, the percentage of the latter one is very high. In such case, the author of the article counters the Taureks viewpoint of saving a smaller number of American people by risking a relatively large amount of Japanese lives. Also, the Japanese politicians were almost on their way to surrender unconditionally after the first attack. In this case, it can be inferred that second attack at Nagasaki was done to show how helpless Japanese were.

In the above articles, the viewpoint represents the two different groups of people. The first group of people are the ones that feel sympathy for the people harmed by the atomic bomb attack. The second viewpoint is mainly appreciated by the people that believe that there are no moral limitations during war and purpose of the war is to kill and to defeat the enemies by any means. The author of the first article belongs to Georgetown University from the United States.

The author seems to be a United States resident. So naturally, he may be expected to support the viewpoint to appreciate the steps taken by his countrymen in the past. Throughout the article, the author seems to understand the situation in which President Truman and the people of the United States were left. He also seems to point out the fact that the United States was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor. The author of the article presents his arguments to counter the people that point doubt on the decision made by President Truman.

The reality, however, is, as President Obama described, “no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy.” We can only hope that those individuals tasked with important decisions involving war and peace have the wisdom to differentiate between what should be done and what must be done, and when the situation requires it, the courage to do the latter.

The main reason for the author to prove the decision as reasonable is to imply that any other politician would have done the same in the situation that President Truman made the decisions. Author however is aware of the consequences of the atomic bombing. The author believes that peace can only be achieved with violence in certain conditions. In such condition author believes that violence will help to preserve peace.

On the other hand, the Tits Kumara, writer of the Applying Taurek’s ‘Should the Numbers Count? is a PHD candidate from Flinders University, Australia. He tries to justify that atomic bombing is not fair because the political fight between the countries causes the death of thousands of innocent civilians. He seems to be aware about the consequences of atomic bombing in the deeper level. The main goal of the author is to provide arguments to prove that there were possibilities for securing peace with less human destruction. And because the main target of the atomic bombs were the civilians, Author raises questions about morality.

In conclusion, World War II was one of the most complex time periods in history. While considering victims and casualties it is also necessary to remember the fact that both countries were the participants of the war. Analyzing such a complex part of history to determine right side may produce biased results. Both articles provide their reasons to support each side. Both articles agree that, atomic bombing is a serious issue. The destruction it caused have affected Hiroshima and Nagasaki for generations. From the articles, the readers have a better understanding of the consequences of the war and the use of the atomic bombs. As a result, they encourage future generations to not make such mistakes again.

On August 6, 1945, during World War 2, an American B-29 bomber aircraft dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over the city of Hiroshima, Japan. The initial explosion and radiation wiped out almost 90 p.c of the city and 80,000 innocent people or more were killed immediately or within minutes of the impact (History1); many thousands more would later die due to radiation exposure. Exactly three days after the bombing of Hiroshima the second B-29 bomber dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. Killing about half of what the first atomic bomb had done approximately 40,000 people on impact (History 1), but was still very severely threatening to the nation. These two major events lead to Japan’s Emperor at the time Hirohito agreeing to the country’s surrender of World War II utilizing a radio address on August 15, only six days later, citing the devastating power and veracity of “a new and most cruel bomb.”

The Manhattan Project was a core research and development during World War II that manufactured the first of many nuclear weapons in the US alone. From 1942 through 1946, the project was under the direction of Major General Leslie Groves of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Also, in charge was Nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory who designed the atomic bombs. The Army part was designated, Manhattan District; Manhattan gradually became the main official codename and stuck for decades to come. For security reasons, the project took place in Los Alamos National Laboratory in the desert of New Mexico for the most part. It was a government-funded project that in the end cost nearly $2 billion (about $23 billion in 2018 dollars). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and to produce fissile material, with less than 10% for the development and production of the weapons. Not including the manpower and the B-29 bomber planes that executed the project(Brookings institute 1). The Manhattan project ended World War two in the fastest and with the least harm done to America and our soldiers, with every step being critical and necessary to ending the war.

Each worker at the Manhattan Project went through a rigorous mandatory background check conducted by the FBI ensuring that they had no criminal history or suspicious connections that could put the controversial program endanger. It could often take many weeks for employees to get cleared, sometimes the FBI would contact relatives or earlier employers to clear any suspicions that may be raised during the process of his or her investigation. Every employee that was working at any of the Manhattan Project sites had a badge for security that displayed their photo, job position, and clearance level. Their level of clearance almost always depended on their job. The measures were so extreme that even the mail coming and going out of Los Alamos was censored. Officials would meticulously inspect every single individual piece of mail, making sure that any and all information regarding the site’s location, work activity, or details were removed from the writing. In many cases, military officials would also follow up with civilians whose letters had something uncommonly suspicious, such as coded puzzles or suspected or questionable words. Every district worker, whether scientist, construction worker, had to sign a mandatory form pledging silence about the Project. The security and secrecy were so important for a project like this because if the public did find out about it there is a very high chance the entirety of the project could be put in danger. For example, the government could get much hate for the project and may be forced to move the whole operation or even delay the manufacturing of the first atomic in a life or death arms race with many other nations. Another example of a problem with the public knowing what was taking place in Los Alamos National Lab and other places among America may have gotten in the way of the first trinity test and may have gotten hurt or killed. This would force the government to shut down the operation and potentially lose the war. Making the Manhattan Project irrelevant.

In the simplest terms to explain the process of combustion of an atomic bomb is when the neutron bombards the nucleus of an atom of, isotopes uranium-235 or plutonium-239, it makes that specific nucleus split into two separate pieces. Each of which is now a nucleus with about half the protons and neutrons of the starting isotope. The process of splitting releases, a great amount of thermal energy, as well as gamma rays and two or more neutrons. Under some conditions, the single neutron will strike another isotope, thus bombarding more of the surrounding nuclei, which will most likely emit more neutrons that will split still more nuclei rapidly creating a chain reaction. Creating the explosion of what is known as an atomic bomb.

The devastation of the first nuclear bomb was not certain to be either big enough to end the war or even too large that it would have caused a major an unwanted change in the world’s atmosphere or geography. Or in other words, nobody knew how large the explosion was going to be or if it was going to set off the necessary chain reaction in the nucleus. This is where the first atomic test comes into play. This test commonly referred to as the ‘Trinity’ test was conducted near Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945. The site is located in the desert 120 miles south of Santa Fe. The scientist and other high ranking officials part of the Manhattan Project were around 10,000 yards away to overlook as the first mushroom cloud reached over 40,000 feet into the morning desert air. The tower in which the actively tested bomb sat when detonated was vaporized practically instantly. As the test concluded the bomb had been compared to the power and energy release of approximately 20 kilotons of TNT (History 3). This gave the number part on the Manhattan project a great insight into the pure power and future capabilities of the first atomic bomb and what it could do in warfare. This test also narrowed the wide range of destruction that was recently unknown. In other words, the test was necessary to the success of the project.

There are many reasons why the US may have thought it was justified to drop two atomic bombs on two of Japan’s major cities. One of these reasons and the more common explanation is that it brought the war to a screeching halt that would have otherwise claimed many more lives over many more months or even years. It was believed that the only alternative to the use of an atomic bomb was an invasion of Japan, which would have almost definitely involved the loss of many more US soldiers. American forces invaded the island on February nineteen, 1945, and therefore the succeeding Battle of amphibious assault Iwo Jima lasted for 5 weeks. It has become to be known as one of the bloodiest fighting of warfare II, it’s believed that every one however of all 21,000 Japanese forces on the island was killed except about 200, as were nearly 7,000 Marines(HISTORY). Once the fighting was over, the strategic price of the assault on Iwo Jima came into question. With much of the Japanese military force out of the question, they have become very weak but didn’t give up any hope until necessary. Another event that further weakened the Japanese forces was the battle of Okinawa, additionally referred to as Operation Iceberg, befell in April-June 1945. It resulted in the largest casualties with over 100,000 Japanese casualties and 50,000 casualties for the Allies (History Net 2). It was a hard-fought eighty-day battle for the Island of Okinawa that some have delineated it as the “typhoon of steel”. With the military of Japan having lost a bit less than 200,000 troops in just two battles japan’s army was diminishing rapidly. The predicted casualties of both sides of the war were well above 1,000,000 soldiers according to numerous sources. By using the atomic bombs not only did it show the sheer power of the US military but also in a way saved lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Another reason why the US knew it was necessary to bomb Japan to end the war was that they are known for using, Bushidō, code was ironed into use for hawkishness, to gift war as purifying, and death an obligation. This was conferred as revitalizing ancient values and ‘transcending the modern’. Bushidō would offer a religious defense to let troopers fight to the end. It was known that they weren’t going to surrender even with losing almost 200,00 troops. Unless something major happened, larger than Okinawa and Iwo Jima, for example, the use of an atomic bomb which had a very high chance of forcing Japan to surrender.

Others in the opposition give the reason that it was not necessary or justified to drop the two atomic bombs on Japan since Even secretary of war at the time of this event Henry Lewis Stimson was not convinced that the use of atomic bombs was essential to reduce the dependency of an invasion. Japan had no allies from neighboring countries, their naval force was almost destroyed, and many of its cities had been undergoing air attacks. A combination of both thorough bombing surrounding cities that had been economically dependent on other sources for food and essential materials, and the persistent threat of Soviet initiation in the war, would easily have been enough to end the war in a more peaceful manner, or more so than seizing the lives of tens of thousands of people.

The immediate aftermath in the urban center was a nightmare. Quite forty p.c of the town was destroyed. Major hospitals had been completely planar. Schools, churches, and houses had merely disappeared. Transportation was not possible in what was left of the cities. The Atomic bomb detonated over Hiroshima was razed and burnt around 70 p.c of all buildings and caused an estimated 140,000 deaths by the end of 1945 (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons 1), along with increased rates of cancer and chronic disease among the survivors. A slightly larger bomb was detonated over Nagasaki just three days after leveled 6.7 km2 of the city and killed 74,000 people by the end of 1945 (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons 2). Ground temperatures reached 4,000°C and radioactive rain poured down from the sky onto unexpecting victims. 42 of 45 hospitals were confirmed non-functional; most cases happen to be severe burns. All of the burn beds in Japan would be insufficient to care for the survivors of a single atomic bomb on any city. Both in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, almost all victims died without treatment to ease their suffering and pain before death. Some of the long term effects were 5 to 6 years after the bombings, and a couple of decades later survivors began to be affected by thyroid, breast, respiratory organ and different cancers much higher than traditional rates for Japan. For solid cancers, the other risks associated with radiation exposure still increase throughout the time period of survivors even to the present day, nearly seven decades once the bombings. Girls exposed to the bombings whereas they were pregnant older higher rates of miscarriage and deaths among their infants. kids exposed to radiation in their mother’s female internal reproductive organ were a lot of doubtless to possess intellectual disabilities and impaired growth, similarly as multiplied risk of developing cancer. So for generations and decades to come after the bombings there continued to have a serious effect on many people’s lives. The tradeoff between a few cases of miscarriages, abnormalities while giving birth and cancer had been much tamer than continuing to fight talking the lives of well over 1,000,000 people.

The bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki while they seemed destructive at the time were very important to the lives of hundreds of thousands that didn’t have to die fighting. without the bombing, the war may have gone on for many more years but it only lasted six days before Japan agreed to surrender. This was surprising since after losing so many troops they didn’t feel the need to and due to their Bushido fighting tactic of never surrender we would have never thought Japan would surrender. But after seeing what the US was capable of it took less than a week before their Emperor at the time, Hirohito agreed to the country’s surrender of World War II. Every single step of the process of building and planning the use of the bombs was necessary for the project to work as well as it did. For example, if the security and secrecy weren’t as important to the project the whole operation could be shut down due to civilians, bombarding the sight. Or if the first trinity test had not been run in the remote desert of New Mexico scientists may have had no idea if they needed to change anything or the other officials and officers so that they could pinpoint the devastation of the bomb. Without any of the steps, the Manhattan Project could have been a complete failure and could have cost the lives of millions of people. 

Throughout U.S. History, the American government has consistently been a central actor in foreign conflicts and affairs. Over time, the United States has grown to be one of the largest and most powerful nations in the world, and although presidents have tried to lead the US down independent paths, the United States has always dealt with international relations. First, the United States has constantly promoted democracy and capitalism across the foreign world in hopes of their own benefit. Second, the United States has been involved in foreign affairs in hopes of U.S. economic prosperity and growth. Third, the United States has relied on its military, to stop other nations from working against the U.S. These ideas raise the question of what has been America’s main objective with foreign policy since 1776. Throughout history, the United States has set a grand strategy of being the leader of the foreign world and has utilized three main methods in pursuit of this objective.

The United States government has consistently engaged in foreign policy that has centered on promoting democracy and capitalism. This strategy has ultimately led the United States to become a leader in international affairs. In the 1830s, Andrew Jackson promoted democracy by growing the landmass of America with the idea of “Western Expansion.” As part of this plan, Jackson issued a “civilization policy” for Native Americans. This plan allowed Native Americans to remain east of the Mississippi so long as they became assimilated with American culture. He encouraged them to learn English, dress like Americans, adopt Christianity, and marry whites. Moreover, Jackson promoted his “civilization policy” by forcing five Native American nations to either assimilate or die. With the Indian Removal Act and Trail of Tears, Jackson forced thousands of Native Americans to fear for their lives and assimilate, leading more people in the world to practice democracy and capitalism. This policy would expand the footprint of American democracy and the potential influence of the US government in foreign affairs. Furthermore, in World War II, George Marshall would follow a similar strategy by devising a plan to encourage European countries to convert to capitalism and democracy. In a speech, he stated, “The truth of the matter is that Europe’s requirements for the next 3 or 4 years of foreign food and other essential products—principally from America—are so much greater than her present ability to pay that she must have substantial additional help, or face economic, social, and political deterioration of a very grave character.” George Marshall allocated 12.5 billion dollars to help the impoverished and rebuild European economies. The hope was that by alleviating poverty and providing material assistance, countries would support democracy over communism. In countries such as Italy and France, the assistance America provided, helped them rebuild their economies. In so doing, these countries saw the positive effects of capitalism and democracy, eventually leading them to follow American ideals. Most recently, George W. Bush has continued with this strategy as he engaged the US in foreign affairs in order to advocate for democracy. Bush once stated, “And, therefore, we will help young democracies when we find them… It is in our interests that we combine security with a political process that frees people; liberates people; that gives people a chance to determine their own futures. I believe most people in the Middle East want just that.” George Bush believed democracy was the most effective form of government because each person was free to their own opinion. As part of the Bush Doctrine, George Bush was committed to converting every nation to democracy and that it was the US government’s responsibility to “liberate” citizens from other forms of governing. Bush assumed that this “superior” form of government is what every nation would want. Ultimately, Bush’s Doctrine was ineffective as it caused unrest and conflict in foreign nations. In spite of these challenges, the United States has been effective at becoming a role model and world leader for other countries, by advocating for democracy and capitalism. The actions taken by the United States government show the power the U.S. holds. By “forcing” other to nations to adopt democracy and capitalism the United States has gained control in foreign nations. In the founding period, Andrew Jackson forced the Native Americans to follow democracy and capitalism while expanding the United States’s control of more land. After World War Two, the United States helped impoverished countries leading them away from communism, and allowing the U.S. to gain more allies and control in the Western Hemisphere. Finally, George W. Bush’s regime change, allowed the US to gain more control and dominance in the Middle East, leading them to greater access to oil. This influence across the world has allowed the United States to help make decisions in other nations that will benefit themselves. By promoting democracy and capitalism, the U.S. will become the global leader.

The United States has also pursued a foreign affairs strategy that has fueled the growth of the national economy, ultimately supporting the country in becoming a world leader. In the founding period, Thomas Jefferson exhibited this idea with his purchase of the Louisiana territory. He said, ‘There is on this globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans.’ At the end of the Haitian revolution, France realized the challenges it faced in ruling overseas nations and that it needed money for the Great French War. Thomas Jefferson asked Napoleon if the U.S. could buy the port of New Orleans. Because the French had trouble ruling over this territory, Napoleon offered to sell all of the Louisiana territories to the United States. Jefferson wanted the Louisiana territory because he saw economic benefits in both the Mississippi River and the Port of New Orleans. This purchase doubled the size of America and would be essential in shipping products to America’s markets and trading with other nations. Thomas Jefferson’s strategy of working with foreign nations was focused on growing the US economy. Another example of the U.S. dealing with foreign affairs for economic reasons was in Cuba. By the end of the 1800s, Spain had lost all of its colonies to revolutions except Cuba and Puerto Rico. Many Cubans yearned for their independence, however, they needed help in rebelling against the Spanish government. With the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine, the United States accused the Spanish of attacking the ship and citizens pushed for U.S. involvement in the war. In reality, President McKinley would use this “attack” as a cover, because he wanted Cuba separated from Spain in order to protect U.S. economic interests. The United States had millions of dollars invested in Cuban businesses, and the US would benefit economically from Cuban prosperity. President Mckinley argued that if the Cuban economy was ruined it could have a negative effect on the American economy. Overall, President McKinley decided to be involved in the Spanish-American war in order to protect and grow American economics. Most recently, the United States’ presence in the Persian Gulf War is another example of US involvement in foreign affairs in order to strengthen the national economy. With the withdrawal of Great Britain from the Middle East after WWII, the US became the main “guardian” of western access to oil. In 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded the US ally, Kuwait, the United States feared that this invasion would threaten America’s access to oil. Under President George H.W. Bush, the United States launched “Operation Desert Storm,” driving Hussein back into Iraq. These events illustrate that the United States was not only involved in foreign affairs to protect an ally but also to support its own economy and protect a nation that supplied it with its “huge oil reserves.” In summary, the United States’ approach to foreign policy has often been driven by its desire to protect and grow the US economy. Other countries rely on the United States for aid and support and to help grow their own economies. The United States is viewed as a role model for fueling economic growth which has helped the United States to become a powerful, dominant, global leader.

As the United States has been involved in foreign affairs, they have also relied on its military power to demonstrate its position as a world leader. In the Mexican-American War of 1848, the US strategically used the army to generate a conflict with Mexico. The United States hoped this would lead to the acquisition of Mexican territory and the growth and development of the US in North America and the world. After the annexation of Texas, under the leadership of President Zachary Taylor, James Polk ordered troops to stir up problems in Mexico in the hope of creating a conflict. When US soldiers were marching in disputed territory and were shot at, this began the Mexican American War. This war was highly successful for the United States as it required Mexico to turn over all of its Western lands to the U.S. In order to expand its borders, the United States unnecessarily used its military against a foreign country, ultimately starting a war. Another instance of the United States’ involvement in foreign affairs for militaristic means, was the dropping of the atomic bomb. Even the decision to drop the atomic bomb during WWII was partially driven by America’s drive to be a global power, particularly in relation to the Soviet Union. Historian Michael Bess answers the question of whether the atomic bomb was necessary by saying, “The answer to this question is clear. No, it was not necessary. The allies were going to defeat Japan, with or without the bomb.” He goes on to say that the “atomic bomb’s power also was a potential tool to intimidate the Soviet Union.” The atomic bomb demonstrated the strength of the United States because it showed the US now had the military capability to easily destroy an entire nation. The atomic bomb exhibited the supreme power of the U.S. armed forces and helped to solidify America’s role as a global leader after World War Two as America was clearly militarily dominant over the Soviet Union which lacked such a weapon. In more recent times, former President George W. Bush relied on the military instead of on a more diplomatic approach to show the power of the United States. He said, “To answer these attacks and rid the world of evil… we will not waver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” The War on Terror, Bush stressed, would begin with Al-Qaeda but would “not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” Immediately following the attacks of 9/11, George W. Bush deployed troops and declared war in the Middle East. This war continues to be fought to this day. Over 300,000 troops have been deployed to the Middle East, and under President Donald Trump the United States seems willing to continue its military presence. George W. Bush’s approach illustrates that the United States often approaches foreign affairs in a way that demonstrates the power of the US military rather than relying on diplomatic means to demonstrate its position as a world leader. By showing the dominance of its armed forces in foreign affairs, the United States is often trying to intimidate other countries and make them afraid of working against the interests of the United States. In so doing, the United States cultivates more allies and more support. This will increase the United States’ hegemony and influence in countries across the world, allowing it to become a more dominant force. Military power is another way the United States has built its position as a global leader.

Throughout history, the United States has set the main objective of being the leader of the foreign world by setting three main goals. To begin with, the United States has advocated for the acceptance of American ideas in foreign nations in order to help the U.S. Additionally, the United States has worked with foreign nations in hopes of growing the U.S. economy. Lastly, the United States has used its military in foreign affairs, with the ultimate goal of demonstrating the power of the army. Through economic, militaristic, and political agendas, the United States has evolved into one of the greatest leaders of the world. This trend reveals that being involved with other nations can help a country grow into a successful, prosperous nation for all of its citizens.

Bibliography

1. Andrew Jackson: Indian Removal Message to Congress (1829).’ In American Government, ABC-CLIO, 2020. Accessed January 29, 2020. http://americangovernment.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/210501.
2. Bess, Michael. 2006. Choices Under Fire.
3. Bush, George W. 2006. “President Bush’s News Conference.” The New York Times, December 20, 2006. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/washington/20text-bush.html.
4. ‘George C. Marshall: Marshall Plan Speech (1947).’ In American Government, ABC-CLIO, 2020. Accessed January 29, 2020. http://americangovernment.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/210630.
5. History.com Editors. 2018. “Marshall Plan.” HISTORY. August 21, 2018. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/marshall-plan-1.
6. History.com Editors. 2018. “Mexican-American War.” HISTORY. September 13, 2018. https://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war/mexican-american-war.
7. History Hub | Persian Gulf War.” 2020. Abc-Clio.Com. 2020. http://historyhub.abc-clio.com/Support/Display/2181090?sid=2181090&cid=143&productId=8&oid=309885.
8. ‘Persian Gulf War.’ In American Government, ABC-CLIO, 2020. Accessed January 29, 2020.http://americangovernment.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/201054.
9. Shi, David Emory. 2019. America a Narrative History.
10. The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. 2018. “Spanish-American War | Causes, Facts, Battles, & Results.” In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-American-War.
11. Worsham, James. 2016. “Jefferson Looks Westward.” National Archives. August 15, 2016. https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/winter/jefferson-message.html.

Atomic bomb essay outline

Research Question: Was the United States justified in using atomic bombs against Japan to bring World War One to an end?

Thesis Statement:

The United States was not justified in its decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan to end World War II.

The Japanese emperor considered negotiating an end to the war; a surrender was possible

Japanese records show that the involvement of the Soviets was the biggest factor that drove the Japanese to surrender, rather than the use of the Atomic bomb would lead to an international arms race a letter intercepted by the U.S. government showed a correspondence between two Japanese Officials that the emperor was worried about the destruction and sacrifice and wanted to bring the war to a swift ending

The Emperor would only negotiate if the U.S. and England were to reconsider their attitude toward “Unconditional Surrender”

Considering these two points, a peaceful negotiation was possible

A historian named Tsuyoshi Hasegawa found two records (dated 1945, August 6 and August 17) that the involvement of the Soviets was the bigger factor that had brought Japan to surrender rather than the use of the Atomic bomb

On June 11, 1945, the Franck report was submitted to the U.S. Secretary of War Stimson written by 6 scientists to examine the effect on society and politics the scientists reported that the demonstration of the bomb would create an arms race and weaken the future possibility of reaching an international agreement on nuclear weaponry

Conclusion: The end of World War II ended simultaneously with the unnecessary decision to use the atomic bomb, which came with alarming political and social implications, most importantly: the birth of the international nuclear arms race that had developed from a weapon of mass destruction to a weapon that threatens humanity as a whole.

Atomic bomb essay

Was the United States justified in using atomic bombs against Japan to bring World War One to an end?

The United States was not justified in its decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan to end World War II

First of all, the U.S. government claimed to have no other option to get Japan to surrender other than to make use of the atomic bomb, however, a letter between two Japanese high-ranking officials was intercepted by the U.S. government which indicated that Emperor Hirohito of Japan wanted to put a swift end to the war if the U.S. reconsidered its commands for an “unconditional surrender”. A negotiable peace could have easily taken place, giving no justification for the U.S. to drop the atomic bombs.

Second, in June, Manhattan Project scientists submitted the Franck Report to the U.S. Secretary of War as a warning which in its contents emphasized the effect that the use of nuclear bombs would have on politics and in society. The scientists warned if the atomic bomb was used, It would create a race for nuclear armaments and weaken the possibility of a future nuclear weapon agreement. They proposed an alternative way of scaring the enemy to surrender—by revealing the nuclear bombs in a demonstration in an uninhabited area.

Finally, a historian named Tsuyoshi Hasegawa discovered two records—both dated August 1945 (after the bombs were dropped)—which showed that the involvement of the Soviets was the ultimate factor that brought Japan to surrender and not the atomic bomb. This fact alone reinforces the argument that the U.S. was not justified in its decision to drop the atomic bombs.

The end of World War II ended simultaneously with the unnecessary use of the atomic bomb, which came with alarming political and social implications, and most importantly: the birth of the international nuclear arms race that had developed from a weapon of mass destruction to a weapon that threatened humanity as a whole.