There's also the biggest argument againstie: the humanitarian one it was the civilians of hiroshima and nagasaki who suffered the horrendous effects of these bombs they were not dropped on strategic military targets, but on heavily built-up and residential areas. The decision to use the bomb: a consensus view by alex wellerstein , published march 8th, 2013 one of the great historical arguments of the late-20th century was whether the decision to use the atomic bomb was justified or not, and what the real goals of its use were. For: it was the fastest way to end the war with japan which saved many allied lives also, here's a little published fact japan's attempt to launch a nuclear (yes nuclear) attack on the united. It also features a counterpoints section that contrasts a quote from secretary of war henry stimson supporting the bomb's use with one from leo szilard, an atomic physicist, characterizing the use of the bombs against japan as one of the greatest blunders of history.
One argument supporting the case that dropping the nuclear bomb was the right thing to do, is that the immediate deaths that it caused are outweighed by lives potentially saved in the long run by. One of the things i learned was that these websites existed another thing i learned was that a lot of documents were saved in case of a disaster 1 were you able to locate an interview with tom evans, a close friend of president truman's, who interacted with scientists who were trying to reach truman with their campaign against the use of the atomic bomb. The argument about the soviet role in japan's surrender has a connection with the argument about the soviet role in america's decision to drop the bomb: both arguments emphasize the importance of the soviet union the former suggests that japan surrendered to the us out of fear of the soviet union, and the latter emphasizes that the us dropped.
The a-bomb won't do what you think: an argument against reliance on nuclear weapons for four years after the us dropped atom bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki to end world war ii, america held a monopoly on the production of atomic weapons. After five meetings between may 9 and june 1, it recommended use of the bomb against japan as soon as possible and rejected arguments for advance warning clearly in line with truman's inclinations, the recommendations of the interim committee amounted to a prepackaged decision. The bomb's use impressed the soviet union and halted the war quickly enough that the ussr did not demand joint occupation of japan why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified: japan was ready to call it quits anyway. I know there are plenty are arguments for the use of atomic bombs i'm writing a paper that includes both sides of the argument, but i can't seem to find any concrete arguments against it.
Truman was fully aware that usage of chemical weapons on japan was planned and could easily have viewed usage of the atomic bomb as the lesser of two evils, especially if its use avoided need for. The atomic bomb and the end of world war ii: a collection of primary sources a nuclear weapon of the little boy type, the uranium gun-type detonated over hiroshima it is 28 inches in diameter and 120 inches long. Use during world war ii by germany which statement is an argument against using the atomic bomb its power was greater than needed to defeat the japanese. First of all, if such arguments are to have any hope of respectability at all, they have to be logically consistent, and in order to be that they must, of necessity, be arguments not just against the atom bomb attacks, but against all the bombing that occurred during the entire war that caused civilian deaths.
Arguments for and against the use of the atomic bomb arguments against the bomb argument 1: the bomb was made for defense only argument 2: use of the bomb was illegal. The president's historic visit took place 71 years after the us dropped an atomic bomb on the city during world war ii, one of two it used during that conflict. The argument goes that if these appraisals were inflated, the president had less business justifying the horror of the bomb as a way of saving lives this debate is less interesting to mr alperovitz. Well the use of an atomic bomb is and will always be a crime against the human society in any aspect you will look at it even if the country is in war this is not the way to resolve this.
Arguments for and against the atomic bomb for against arguments for and against using the atomic bomb on japan hiroshima - hiroshima was the largest city in the largest island of japan, honshu. Historians will never fully agree on the answers and the children born of fathers who might otherwise have been sent to invade japan in 1945 often wonder if they should not be grateful that the bomb was used, first on hiroshima on 6 august and then against nagasaki. Page 493 chapter 23 the decision to use the atomic bomb by louis morton (see chapter one for information on the author) on 6 august 1945 the united states exploded an atomic bomb over hiroshima and revealed to the world in one blinding flash the start of the atomic age.
The use of the atomic bomb against japan was completely justified in both cause and impact an intense weapon was necessary to force a quick japanese surrender the bomb saved thousands upon thousands of american and japanese lives that would have been lost if the war continued or an invasion. The nuclear weapons debate refers to the controversies surrounding the threat, use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons even before the first nuclear weapons had been developed, scientists involved with the manhattan project were divided over the use of the weapon.