Writers like George Evans-Hulme who support this say that the bomb was justified as The US like the rest of the world was exiting a dark period in human history where they had lost 418,000 lives, both military and civilian, to end their battle with Japan they had to attack and they would have risked too many lives in an invasion so the most effective decision at the time was the dropping of the bombs. Also George defends that United States needed a quick way to end the war with the least possible of losses and they had the equipment for the use. He also states that if it was not for the massive destruction of the bombs the Japanese would have not surrendered and kept the war alive, also as a conclusion for the topic he analyzed how if they had attempted to do the same damage with other military weapons the death toll would have been higher for both countries. Another interesting point in favor of this is how it could impact a threat to the USSR sending the message that the US was more prepared and not afraid to attack if given the circumstances. As a concluding statement the common point on people who defend this is that it helped the US send a message of authority. Another point of view was that the unnecessary bomb was only for sending a message to USSR, who …show more content…
The fight was already over as United States had all the resources to defeat Japan without the use of Atomic Bombs, it seemed more like they wanted to destroy more the country rather than worrying about terminating the war. As history tells those civilian deaths did not scared the USSR to continue their atomic bomb investigation, in fact they speeded up their research and had the same technology four years after. The USSR saw this as a showmanship of power by the United States and they wanted this resource as much if not more than their enemies, of course the Soviet Union took advantage of the situation to cover their investigations by stating that they were only doing it by self-defense as the United States was a