After analyzing the book, I found that Miscamble organizes his subject matter so as to lead the reader to certain conclusions through the use of rhetorical structure. For example, he uses sarcastic questions to make his position clear; “[a]fter all this, must we still ask was it right? Must we wrestle with the morality of the atomic bomb?” Further, Miscamble presents one view over another as the more logical answer, making it easier for the reader to see his position indirectly. For example, Miscamble puts down those who judge Truman’s decision to bomb Japan: “[h]ad he not authorized the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki thousands of American and Allied soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen would have been added to the lists of those killed
…show more content…
First, in an attempt to understand Truman authentically, Miscamble is overly empathetic towards his circumstance and dismisses the majority of Truman’s responsibility for the bombing. For example, Miscamble makes the point that Truman cannot take ultimate responsibility for the atomic bomb because he was not involved with their origins. Further, he mentions that Truman was more of a bystander than the mastermind: “Truman saw himself as working to uphold Roosevelt’s agreements. His want to continue his predecessor’s policies stayed with him in the weeks and months ahead and it certainly characterizes his approach on the atomic bomb.” However, one cannot excuse responsibility from the man who was the commander and chief at the time of the bombing. He had the right exercise the power to both prevent or deploy the bomb, and he chose the later. Therefore, one should not dismiss Truman’s responsibility for the atomic bomb based on his circumstances when he had the power to stop …show more content…
“There was not an easily available and appropriate option that would have met the serious political and moral objections of the many later critics of Truman’s decision. Therein lies the tragic dimensions of the decision to use the atomic bombs to defeat Japan.” He also justifies the bombing after seeing the good that came of it: “After all this, must we still ask was it right? Must we wrestle with the morality of the atomic bomb?” Here, Miscamble falls into a postmodern utilitarian view of morality which removes the consequence of an action as long as that action leads to “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” He excused many of the negative consequences because of the military necessity: “Military necessity is the mother of moral justification”. He disregards the immorality because of the ignorance of the leaders who deployed the bomb in regards to the radioactive damage it caused: “Tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure.” He claims that women and children were not targets. However, how could this be true if so many civilians died in the attack just after the first bombing: “The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people.” That was only after the first bombing, the second bombing would kill thousands
First, in an attempt to understand Truman authentically, Miscamble is overly empathetic towards his circumstance and dismisses the majority of Truman’s responsibility for the bombing. For example, Miscamble makes the point that Truman cannot take ultimate responsibility for the atomic bomb because he was not involved with their origins. Further, he mentions that Truman was more of a bystander than the mastermind: “Truman saw himself as working to uphold Roosevelt’s agreements. His want to continue his predecessor’s policies stayed with him in the weeks and months ahead and it certainly characterizes his approach on the atomic bomb.” However, one cannot excuse responsibility from the man who was the commander and chief at the time of the bombing. He had the right exercise the power to both prevent or deploy the bomb, and he chose the later. Therefore, one should not dismiss Truman’s responsibility for the atomic bomb based on his circumstances when he had the power to stop …show more content…
“There was not an easily available and appropriate option that would have met the serious political and moral objections of the many later critics of Truman’s decision. Therein lies the tragic dimensions of the decision to use the atomic bombs to defeat Japan.” He also justifies the bombing after seeing the good that came of it: “After all this, must we still ask was it right? Must we wrestle with the morality of the atomic bomb?” Here, Miscamble falls into a postmodern utilitarian view of morality which removes the consequence of an action as long as that action leads to “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” He excused many of the negative consequences because of the military necessity: “Military necessity is the mother of moral justification”. He disregards the immorality because of the ignorance of the leaders who deployed the bomb in regards to the radioactive damage it caused: “Tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure.” He claims that women and children were not targets. However, how could this be true if so many civilians died in the attack just after the first bombing: “The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people.” That was only after the first bombing, the second bombing would kill thousands