Hiroshima Bombing, Justified or not?

Authors Avatar

Hiroshima Bombing, Justified or not?

Since the dropping of the Atomic bomb ‘Enola Gay’ on Hiroshima in 1945, many Historians and Philosophers have debated and questioned the moral laws of this solo event, the single happening that probably changed war and chemical use forever, the sole occurrence that claimed the life of thousands of innocent women and children.

 In this essay the moral and ethnic ‘so called’ laws are going to be discussed and the actions of the occurrence whether said to be right or wrong are going to be weighed up and determined if they firstly, are valuable and then I am going to place all of these useful points together to see if the bombings were justified or completely un-justified.

Let’s first begin with Source A: “Conventional bombing (if affective) would kill far more Japanese then an Atomic bomb would” This quote states that “conventional” (Normal) bombing would be superior and far more useful than a single bomb of Atomic power.

Join now!

This point is a useful point and is not very biased as it was thought by someone who did want to eliminate the Japanese and thought that the military really would benefit if they used normal bombing instead of this new force.

This point also gives us an insight into the numbers of dead and the power of bombs.

This point justifies the bombings emphasising that it really wouldn’t work and that it was pretty rubbish, so therefore not that bad to use.

Another point that backs up A is point C:

“Field Marshall Terauchi would have fought on and ...

This is a preview of the whole essay