Was The Atomic Bomb Nessary Essay, Research Paper

Atomic Bomb Necessary …. Was it Necessary?

August 6th, 1945, 70,000 lives were ended in a matter of

seconds. The United States had dropped an atomic bomb on the

city of Hiroshima. Today many argue over whether or not the US

should have taken such a drastic measure. Was it entirely

necessary that we drop such a devastating weapon? Yes, it was.

First, we must look at what was going on at the time the

decision was made. The US had been fighting a massive war since

1941. Morale was most likely low, and resources were probably at

the same level as morale. However, each side continued to fight,

and both were determined to win. Obviously, the best thing that

could have possibly have happened would have been to bring the war

to a quick end, with a minimum of casualties.

What would have happened had the A-bomb not been used?

The most obvious thing is that the war would have continued. US

forces; therefore, would have had to invade the home island of

Japan. Imagine the number of casualties that could have occurred

if this would have happened! Also, our forces would not only have

to fight off the Japanese military, but they would have to defend

themselves against the civilians of Japan as well. It was also a

fact that the Japanese government had been equipping the

commoners with any kind of weapon they could get their hands on.

It is true that this could mean a Japanese citizen could have

anything from a gun to a spear, but many unsuspecting soldiers

might have fallen victim to a surprise spear attack! The number of

deaths that would have occurred would have been much greater,

and an invasion would have taken a much longer period of time. The

Japanese would have continued to fight the US with all of what

they had; spears, guns, knives, whatever they could get their

hands on, just as long as they continued to fight the enemy.

As mentioned before, it is a fact that some civilians had

been ready to fight our military with spears! What made it

possible that the Japanese would resort to using spears? Why

wouldn t they use guns or other weapons? Well, the truth was,

the government just didn t have the resources to give out a gun

to just any citizen. US naval blockades are one of the major

reasons that Japan was so low on resources, and a main point

opponents of the decision to drop the bomb constantly bring up.

Japan obviously was very low on resources. Japanese civilians

were ready to die with spears in their hands, surely the military

would do the same. Besides, the Japanese military did still have

some resources to go on. So again I must bring out the fact that

Japan could have continued to fight, and they would have. And I m

sure anyone can realize what would happen if the war continued;

more deaths. Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Staff to President

Roosevelt and President Truman, wrote, By the beginning of

September 1944, Japan was almost completely defeated

through a practically complete sea and air blockade. If that was

true, how could they have continued to fight and rack up enemy

kills? If the Chief of Staff to the President figured they would

soon surrender around September 1944; why were they still

fighting almost a year later? And how can we be so sure that any

other estimates on when the war would end would be correct?

Basically, we can t. For all anyone knows, Japan would have kept

fighting. It was the atomic bomb that forced Japan to surrender

and in turn saved thousands if not millions of lives.

How can anyone be so sure that Japan would continue

to fight? No one can say exactly what would have happened,

because let s face it, no one really knows. It s possible Japan was

just about to surrender, but most evidence would not agree with

that statement. I m sure most have heard of a group of men

called the Kamikaze. Kamikaze were suicide pilots. They would

load an airplane up with explosives and try to nose-dive it into an

enemy target. Think about what must be on this pilot s mind.

Imagine the undying love he must have for his country. He would

fight until the end, for his emperor and his country. The scary

thing about this is the majority of the Japanese military thought

this way. The fact that the enemy is ready to die so long as you

die with him is not something a soldier wants to think about

before going into battle. Once more I must bring into the picture

the fact that a longer war means more deaths, and it appears

that a longer war is exactly what Japan had in mind.

Most opponents of the bomb say the it was immoral to

drop the bomb on such targets as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but

you cannot deny the fact the major manufacturing of wartime

products was being conducted here. Now, I m going to be honest, I

don t believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best places to

bomb, due to the high civilian numbers; however, it is still my belief

that the Atomic Bomb was necessary to end the war. Also,

leaflets and warnings had been issued to the people of those

cities warning them of an attack. Some say that the United

States should have warned what kind of attack it would have

been. This however seems ridiculous to me. It shouldn t matter

what kind of warning is given, a threat under such conditions

should be taken seriously, and the citizens should have evacuated.

One might also point out the fact, however brutal this may seem,

that ever since Sherman s March to the Sea of the American Civil

War, which was a turning point in modern warfare, civilian

population centers are also considered fair game to the military.

The moral issue of dropping an atomic bomb is very

controversial. Especially since radiation is a major side effect of

such a weapon. On the other hand though, fire-bombings of other

Japanese cities had left other civilians equally scarred. If one

wanted to argue the issue of radiation as a side effect of atomic

bombing, they would have to find a way to argue the side effects

of bombing altogether. Is it immoral to use a bomb? No; it s not

very nice, but it s not immoral. These are the kinds of things that

happen in war, however unfortunate they are.

Despite other arguments, the Atomic Bomb was a

necessity. Without it, the number of men that would have died on

both sides far surpasses that of the number that were killed in

the droppings of both Atomic Bombs. Let s face it, the goal of

waging war is victory with minimum losses on one s own side, and if

possible a minimum amount of losses on the enemy s side. The

Atomic Bomb cut losses to a minimum and drew war to an end

quickly. It was a military necessity.