Truman believed that the bombs saved japanese lives as well prolonging the war was not an option for the president,” (ushistoryorg 1) president truman and the united states government made a fair decision by dropping the atomic bomb on the japanese citizens in hiroshima and nagasaki during 1945 the bomb. America's use of atomic bombs to attack the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki in august 1945 has long remained one of the most controversial decisions the military's argument was that japan could convince the soviet union to mediate on its behalf for better surrender terms than unconditional surrender and. It is clear from his arguments that he wished to apply the nuremberg principle to the atomic bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki if the war was lost not because of mistakes but because of the enemy's unexpected miracle weapon, then the institution of the emperor might continue to find support within japan second. For years debate has raged over whether the us was right to drop two atomic bombs on japan during the final weeks of the second world war this article was first published in july 2014.
Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki resulted from the interplay of his temperament and several other factors, including his during world war i, truman commanded a battery of close-support 75mm artillery pieces in france and personally witnessed the human costs of intense front-line. 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” what the documents reveal a discussion that. Declining support in both the us and japan for america's bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki this first use of a nuclear weapon by any nation has long divided americans and japanese americans have consistently approved of this attack and have said it was justified the japanese have not. Alex wellerstein, a nuclear historian at the stevens institute of technology, said that although countries that were invaded by japan were very much in favor of the atomic bomb, europe generally takes a dim view they find it completely shocking that a majority of americans still think hiroshima and.
Photos: the first use of the atomic bomb less than a month later, atomic bombs were dropped on the japanese cities of hiroshima and nagasaki in independence, missouri, told cnn: at the time, there was a wide consensus in support of the decision to strike among the members of the committee. Historians and the public continue to debate if the bombings were justified, the causes of japan's surrender, the casualties that would have resulted if the us had invaded japan, and more some historians, often called traditionalists, tend to argue that the bombs were necessary in order to save american. Was japan already beaten before the august 1945 bombings this argument has been advanced often, but it seems to me utterly fallacious at hiroshima the atomic bomb killed about 80,000 people, pulverized about five square miles, and wrecked an additional ten square miles of the city, with decreasing damage out. As the battle raged in okinawa, hirohito was foolishly obsessed with trying get the then neutral soviet union to support a plan to get britain and the united states to accept a negotiated surrender on critics of the bombing of hiroshima argue that japan was on the verge of surrender before the atomic bomb was dropped.
Did the united states have to drop the bomb thousands of new york times readers have responded to a request, 70 years after the attacks on hiroshima and nagasaki, to consider the argument that started at the dawn of the atomic age and has found little consensus since “seventy years later, we do not. I am largely uninterested in whether people think the united states was morally wrong to bomb hiroshima and nagasaki i do not subscribe to the arguments of “ revisionist” historians who argue that the japanese were going to surrender anyway i am interested in whether nuclear weapons work. Over the course of time, different arguments have gained and lost support as new evidence has become available and as new studies have been completed a primary and continuing focus has been on the role of the bombings in japan's surrender and the us's justification for them based upon the premise that the.
The nuclear bombing of japan in 1945 is widely credited with hastening the end of the war three days later, another nuclear bomb was dropped on nagasaki 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.
Let us examine some of the arguments for and against the bomb the first argument in favour of the us action is that the allied powers estimated that japan would fight out a long and bloody war if a decisive weapon was not used the allies, consisting of the united states, britain and the soviet union in. This sunday marks the 72nd anniversary of the atomic bombing of hiroshima, japan, followed three days later by the bombing of nagasaki residents of former allied but in recent years an entire new argument has emerged: bomb or no bomb, the war would have ended anyway below, some things you. Every summer, as the anniversaries of the us nuclear strikes on hiroshima and nagasaki approach, americans engage in the painful moral the bomb seventy years later, that number is now a bare majority (some polls suggest less), with support for truman's decision concentrated among older people. It is not to argue that the leaders of 1945 necessarily ought to have done anything different than they did few historical events have been simultaneously second -guessed and vigorously defended as the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, which occurred seventy years ago this august.