Should We Have To Drop The Atomic Bomb Analysis

The dropping of atomic bombs is Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of the most catastrophic bombing is history. It resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and the destruction of more than half of the cities infrastructures. Nonetheless Harry S. Truman and his advisors saw it as the only way to lead Japan to an unconditional surrender. While this is simply the opinion of the United States Commander in Chief and his advisors, there is a lot of controversy as to if it was truly a necessity in forcing Japan to surrender and ending the war. In the “Yes” article, “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had To Drop The Atomic Bomb” by Robert James Maddox argues why dropping atomic bombs in Japan became a necessity when land invasions and the Russians’ mediation were not effective. In the “No” article, “Assessing the Roads Not Taken” by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa claims that there were less destructive alternatives that could have been taken that would have still lead to Japans’ surrender. Although both authors present very valid arguments, Hasegawa does an excellent job at presenting …show more content…
While Hasegawa acknowledges that while the “Hiroshima bombing did not significantly change Japan’s policy, though it did inject a sense of urgency into the peace party’s initiative to end the war.” Though the use of bombs did hurt Japan, they still had the help provided from the Moscow mediation and even began the use of Kamikaze attacks. The Kamikaze attacks demonstrated that the “Japanese hard-liners” were willing to sacrifice themselves and take whatever means necessary to harm the enemy and retain their dictatorship regime. Hasegawa uses these facts to provide realistic outcomes and demonstrate that as long as Japan had leverage and the ability to keep their emperor they were going to continue with the war by whatever means