“Little Boy” Imagine being President and being faced with the decision of having to either drop a newly tested atomic bomb on a Japanese City, harming thousands of innocent people in attempts to get them to surrender or sacrificing your own men by sending them to invade Japan in hopes to conquer them all to put an end to an ongoing war . No matter the option the consequences of the outcome wasn’t going to be a nice one.
Before the bombing took place in Hiroshima in an earlier part of the Second World War the Japanese were becoming a threat to the Allies. With only little chances of winning, the Japanese were letting the U.S know that they weren’t going to be an easy surrender. Around the time that President Harry Truman took office, following …show more content…
Truman explains in a correspondence letter that the dropping of the bomb “was done to save 125,000 youngsters on the American side and 125,000 youngsters on the Japanese side, and that is what I did.” Just like in Teleological ethics where the end result justifies the mean. Truman and the whole U.S were exhausted from war and didn’t want to lose any more men versus the Japanese who were ready to fight to the end risking it all. Truman made the decision knowing that the end result wouldn’t look as victorious to most, but knowing that he saved several thousand lives that could’ve potentially been lost made the decision justifiable. Truman also states that, “under the same circumstances, I would do it again” showing that he fully stands behind his decision to stop the war by atomic warfare, but doing so respectfully to save lives. Truman compared his approach to how the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor by saying, “the bombing of Pearl Harbor was done while we were at peace with Japan and trying our best to negotiate a treaty with [them].” The Japanese killed a total of 3,000 if not more of American soldiers with the Pearl Harbor attack not caring to save anyone’s life and also forgetting that at the time we weren’t exactly a threat to them, versus Truman’s bombing of Hiroshima that was an attempt to stop war and taking both the American’s and the Japanese lives into consideration. As a President he did the best he could to protect and serve and I couldn’t see his decision being immoral. As President you have to put the interest of you people first, so to the Japanese I could see where they thought the act was immoral but didn’t they do the something? He saved lives on both sides, if he were to be so immoral and corrupt as they say he wouldn’t have even taken their lives into consideration. The dropping of the bomb was just a
Before the bombing took place in Hiroshima in an earlier part of the Second World War the Japanese were becoming a threat to the Allies. With only little chances of winning, the Japanese were letting the U.S know that they weren’t going to be an easy surrender. Around the time that President Harry Truman took office, following …show more content…
Truman explains in a correspondence letter that the dropping of the bomb “was done to save 125,000 youngsters on the American side and 125,000 youngsters on the Japanese side, and that is what I did.” Just like in Teleological ethics where the end result justifies the mean. Truman and the whole U.S were exhausted from war and didn’t want to lose any more men versus the Japanese who were ready to fight to the end risking it all. Truman made the decision knowing that the end result wouldn’t look as victorious to most, but knowing that he saved several thousand lives that could’ve potentially been lost made the decision justifiable. Truman also states that, “under the same circumstances, I would do it again” showing that he fully stands behind his decision to stop the war by atomic warfare, but doing so respectfully to save lives. Truman compared his approach to how the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor by saying, “the bombing of Pearl Harbor was done while we were at peace with Japan and trying our best to negotiate a treaty with [them].” The Japanese killed a total of 3,000 if not more of American soldiers with the Pearl Harbor attack not caring to save anyone’s life and also forgetting that at the time we weren’t exactly a threat to them, versus Truman’s bombing of Hiroshima that was an attempt to stop war and taking both the American’s and the Japanese lives into consideration. As a President he did the best he could to protect and serve and I couldn’t see his decision being immoral. As President you have to put the interest of you people first, so to the Japanese I could see where they thought the act was immoral but didn’t they do the something? He saved lives on both sides, if he were to be so immoral and corrupt as they say he wouldn’t have even taken their lives into consideration. The dropping of the bomb was just a