The Decision to use Atomic Bomb in Japan

The Decision to use Atomic Bomb in Japan

Part I. Introduction

1. Describe in general the issue being debated – The general issue being debated is whether the decision by the U.S. to use the atomic bomb against Japan was justified. Over the years, the debate has raged regarding whether America was right to use nuclear weapons against Japan as the Second World War was coming to an end. The U.S. dropped the first both on Hiroshima City on 6^th, August 1945 killing about 135,000 people. On the 9^th of August, U.S. soldiers dropped another atomic bomb in Nagasaki, leading to the death of about 50,000 people[1]. The debate over the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki has raised concerns over the legal, ethical, and military controversies of the action. Over the course of time, people have expressed diverse views, some of which have lost and gained support as new evidence emerges.

Part II. Historical Debate

1. What is the main argument in each perspective? On what points do they agree or disagree? – Paul Fussel argued that the atomic bomb dropped in the two cities saved Japan. Fussel presents that the U.S. explored nuclear to produce energy, and it was regrettable that the weapons were later deployed against Japan[2]. He notes that before the dropping of the atomic weapons, it was clear that Japan stood no chance of winning, but the soldiers refused to surrender and were ready to sacrifice up to the last citizen if the war continued. In this view, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan left them with no option but to surrender, saving the country from further fighting. However, Iwamatsu countered the argument by Fussel by saying that the people who decided to use the bombs against Japan betray defects of self-restraint and reason.

   Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page

   GET CUSTOM PAPER
   As a result, Japan suffered massive destruction of property and loss of life[3]. Besides, due to the attack, the radiation has caused several chronic diseases. According to him, the atomic bombings were supposed not to happen, and the U.S. would have placed more consideration on the issue before the first nuclear attack. Both perspectives disagree on the decision to drop the atomic bomb in Japan. While the first perspective considers the decision to have opened n avenue for ending the war, the second perspective argues that it was early for the U.S. to open the age of nuclear warfare.

Part III. Conclusion

1. How are the issues presented in your readings still relevant to you today? Please explain how your background and life experiences might influence your perspective on this topic – The issues here are still related because there has been an ongoing debate among countries regarding the making of nuclear weapons. Even though nuclear is a source of energy, the decision of the U.S. to use it to attack Japan presents a need to establish guidelines exploring and making atomic. Moreover, the issues are relevant because the destruction caused by Nuclear in Japan is discussed continuously among nations to ensure such occurrences do not occur again. As for life experiences, I have followed stories across countries that have experienced wars, and the subsequent destructions caused. These wars happening in different countries causes massive damages to property and people. Even though there are efforts to end these conflicts, nations should avoid at all costs the use of nuclear weapons.
2. Imagine you have been asked to tackle a current national or global issue, how would you use what you’ve learned to help you do so? – Having read this, I would definitely look at enhancing bilateral and multilateral relationships among countries. Diplomacy ties among countries play an essential role in how the countries relate. In this view, conflicts and fights between nations are minimal in a situation where countries enjoy good diplomacy ties. On the other hand, conflicts are frequent in cases where states have poor relationships. Therefore, given a chance, I will strive to create peace among nations in disputes to prevent another use of nuclear weapons.

[1] Rauf, Tariq. “Nuclear weapons: Transparency and risk reduction.” Presentation to the Open-Ended Working Group, Geneva (2016). 62

[2] Fussel, Paul. Hiroshima was Not a War Crime. Bulleting of the Atomic Scientist 38, no. 2. (1982): 118 – 123

[3], Iwamatsu, Shigetoshi. “A perspective on war crimes.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 38, no. 2 (1982): 112 – 117