The Pros And Cons Of Atomic Bombing

918 Words4 Pages
August of 1945 was the month when an atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulting in over 40,000 deaths. Six days later Japan surrendered and ended World War ll. But there is much speculation over whether the atomic bombing of these two cities was the best way to get the message across. Robert Maddox and Gar Alperovitz are two men with opposing viewpoints on the bombs, Maddox is for the bombs and Alperovitz is against. The bombings done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the lives of thousands of innocent people and accused America of not exploring better alternatives of getting their point across. However, the US tried to tell Japan several times that they were done fighting before the bombing and Japan was still certain to fight out the war it seemed like the best solution to get the point across. Therefore Maddox’s opinion that the atomic bombing done on Japan was necessary because it was the decision that…show more content…
President Truman met with multiple Army chiefs and was all in agreement that atomic bombing was the only way to get Japan from fighting. The use of the bombs prevented “an invasion that would have cost 500,000 American lives,” with others mentioning even higher numbers of American casualties. Maddox believes that if the bombs were never dropped the war would have still been going on and months or even years more and that the number of deaths would far exceed the 40,000 killed in the bombings. President Harry S. Truman and countless other officials all agreed that the bombings “was necessary” to end the harsh war. Based on Maddox’s article he believes that without the use of atomic bombs there would have been countless more months of fighting in the “Philippines, China and

More about The Pros And Cons Of Atomic Bombing

Open Document