dropped an atomic bomb on a Japanese city known as Hiroshima. This bomb was called “Little Boy” and had the power of over 20,000 tons on TNT. With this great power it absolutely destroyed majority of Hiroshima and has been estimated to have killed over 130,000 people. It wasn’t but three days later that the U.S. dropped a second atomic bomb called “Fat Man” on another Japanese City known as Nagasaki. It was estimated that “Fat Man” killed somewhere between 60,000-70,000 people. Japan surrendered six
two nuclear bombings recorded in history, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, in this essay, I will argue that the atomic bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States (U.S.) were an act of terrorism, and that both cities were not legitimate military targets. Although, in many cases, it is difficult to determine between good and evil acts of politicised violence, but the bombings in both Japanese cities were ultimately wrong. The use of nuclear weapons as a mean to force Japan to
At the end of WW II in the summer 1945, most American’s saw an ultimate reason for President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. They were confident that the application of atomic bombings would end up the war faster. At that, they forgot about horrific consequences of more than thousands of innocent deaths. The counter argument in this context was that Japan made the attack on the United States. After the horrible event, Americans questioned themselves whether Truman really
Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Japan? TARGET: 7B-Use evidence from the sources to explain different points of view to reach a supported judgement There have been many debates over whether the two atomic bombs should have been dropped on Japan. Many people argue that Japan was close to surrender and that the use of two atomic bombs was too excessive. Even some Americans thought the bombs should not have been dropped, an example of this is “The Japanese were already defeated” This was
With every major decision comes controversy and backlash, and the decision by former U.S. president Harry S. Truman to use atomic weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was no different. Did the U.S. absolutely need to engage in nuclear warfare? Was it morally right to bomb civilians? Did the U.S. ignore jus in bello? Many historians have differentiating views regarding the use of atomic weapons, some arguing that the atomic bombs ended the war while others maintain that the bombings
Harriet Truman's decision to drop two atomic bombs in the country of japan on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unjustified for a number of reasons; For starters japan was already beat it was just a waiting game before japan ran out of war supplies, and had the army, supplies, and strength to win the war. Another reason is because of Trumans scare tactics to raise death tolls after invasions because he was set on dropping the bombs. Finally we didn't need to launch the bomb in japan we used that to not
I think there were many advantages and disadvantages to dropping the atomic bombs in order to end the war. The Japanese were given many chances to surrender, but chose not to; they were also warned that if they did not soon surrender they will be facing a mass destruction. Despite all these chances and warnings they still chose
DECISION-MAKING: TRUMAN AND THE ATOMIC BOMB Background: World War II was coming to an end. Germany surrendered in May 1945. In the Pacific, Japan was in retreat. It had lost most of the lands it had conquered. The fighting became harder as the Americans came closer to Japan because many Japanese soldiers would rather die fighting than surrender. The Emperor they worshipped told them soldiers who died in battle would have a glorious afterlife. Japanese suicide pilots called “kamikazes” sank American
200 miles succeeded. The world’s first atomic bomb was detonated.