• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Was The Dropping Of The Atomic Bombs On Hiroshima And Nagasaki Justified?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Alex McAllister Was The Dropping Of The Atomic Bombs On Hiroshima And Nagasaki Justified? A single atomic bomb, the first weapon of its type ever used against a target, exploded over the city of Hiroshima at 8:15 on the morning of August 1945.the attack came 45 minutes after the all clear had been sounded from a previous alert. The explosion came as an almost complete surprise and the people had not taken shelter. The bomb exploded slightly northwest of the centre of the city. Because of this accuracy and the flat land and circular shape of the city, Hiroshima was uniformly and extensively devastated. Practically the entire densely or moderately built up portion of the city was leveled by blast and swept by fire. At Nagasaki three days later, the city was scarcely more prepared, though vague references to the Hiroshima disaster had appeared in the newspaper of 8 August. The city remained on warning alert, but when two B-29's were sighted, coming in the raid signal was not given immediately; the bomb was dropped at 11:02 and the raid signal was given a few minutes later at 11:09. Only about four hundred people were in the city's tunnel shelters, which were adequate for about thirty percent of the population. Was the dropping of the bombs justified? Was it right for America to drop these catastrophic weapons? Was it vital to drop the atomic bombs could they have conquered Japan without them? ...read more.

Middle

Flash burns followed the explosion immediately. Survivors in the two cities stated that people who were in the open directly under the explosion of the bomb were so severely burned that the skin was charred dark brown or black and that they died within a few minutes or hours. A few instances were reported of arms or legs being torn from the body by flying debris. According to the Japanese, those individuals very near the centre of the explosion but not affected by flash burns or secondary injuries became ill within 2 or 3 days. Bloody diarrhea followed, and the victims expired, some within 2 to 3 days after the onset and the majority within a week. Autopsies showed remarkable changes in the blood picture-almost complete absence of white blood cells, and deterioration of bone marrow. Mucous membranes of the throat, lungs, stomach, and the intestines showed acute inflammation. The majority of the radiation cases, who were at greater distances, did not show severe symptoms until 1 to 4 weeks after the explosion, though many felt weak and listless on the following day. After a day or two of mild nausea and vomiting, the appetite improved and the person felt quite well until symptoms reappeared at a later date. Within 12 to 48 hours, fever became evident. In many instances it reached only 100� Fahrenheit and remained for only a few days. ...read more.

Conclusion

America cannot say that Japan was heavily equipped with weapons as they do in source 8 and decide that they just cannot defeat them and have to go to such drastic measures as the dropping of the atomic bombs. If America had only dropped the one bomb on Hiroshima, that would still have been an uncalled for act upon the Americans, however, to drop a second bomb on Nagasaki was certainly not justified. Alex McAllister However, one of the sources supporting that the dropping of the bombs was not justified was written after the war. This was source 11 from an interview with the secretary to the Japanese war minister. This had said that if America had gone ahead and attacked twice or maybe a third time Japan would have been defeated because of lack of weapons and food supply. How do they know that, that was what was going to happen. Japan did not want to surrender and had five million men and five thousands suicide aircrafts. They are saying that America was the stronger country, when at that moment Japan clearly was. Furthermore, the Americans did not have to use the atomic bombs to win, said the secretary to the Japanese war minister, but as mentioned before Japan at that moment were the stronger country. Some of the sources were unreliable such as the ones mentioned above, ones written by Americans and others written after the war. The dropping of the atomic bombs was not justified and the second bombing of Nagasaki was an uncalled for act upon the Americans. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Was the dropping of the A bombs justified? The year is 1945 in the ...

    It was argued that the main strategic alternative to the atom bomb, US occupation of Japan, would have been infinitely more costly in terms of lives, war materials and time. In the USA, memories of the "infamous" Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor meant that there was little sympathy for the

  2. was the dropping of the atomic bombs justified?

    The emperor towards the Japanese was almost like their god, seen as a semi-divine figure, the descendant of Amararatsu. This lead to what seemed like their last option of defense, which was to fight till the last man, woman and child.

  1. Many peoples have contributed to the development of the United States of America, a ...

    Responding enthusiastically, Congress poured out billions of dollars to finance the project. (After the APOLLO PROGRAM succeeded, on July 20, 1969, in landing astronauts on the moon, the space effort remained in motion, if at a reduced pace.)

  2. Why did President Truman Decide to Drop the Two Atomic Bombs On Hiroshima and ...

    was no other option, when they would physically be unable to fight would they have surrendered. An American intelligence report shows, "Top priority has been given to defence. There is considerable activity in the construction of heavy artillery positions. It is probable minefields have been laid along the beaches.

  1. For what reason did Japan bomb Pearl Harbour?

    Roosevelt had turned down the three proposals which were presented by the Japanese. They say that if the Americans had complied with the Japanese in the beginning, nothing of this nature would have of taken place. Other historians say that "Pearl Harbor was not about war with Japan.

  2. How useful is source B as evidence to the historian writing about the atomic ...

    This source graphically tells us of the complete devastation caused by the bomb. It tells us of the thousands that died in each city, and of the fate of the many other victims of radiation poisoning. In Hiroshima 70,000 died of the initial impact of the bomb, and that amount

  1. Dtente, meaning and definition.

    " to Vietnam and seeming acquiescence of the Anglo-American bloc, marked a portentous development in which d�tente was really to be a natural casualty. The situation started deteriorating during the last years of Carter' tenure in the wake of Afghanistan crisis in 1979-80.A puppet government backed by the Soviet Union

  2. An evaluation of the United States decision to use atomic bombs against Hiroshima and ...

    For more than half of a century now historians have contemplated the American's use of atomic bombs in 1945. This investigation is extended in this paper and it's seen that the United States was erroneous in its decision that the atomic bomb would be the most advantageous manner to end

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work