Pavlik's Argument For Dropping The Atomic Bomb

Where the argument fails is that it only establishes why intimidating the USSR was Truman’s objective, but does not discredit all the other reasons the leaders of the time claim they had for using the nuclear bomb, and it is completely logical and feasible that the dropping of the bomb had several motivators. Pavlik’s argument that surrender was imminent is backed up by three main points, the first of which is that the Japanese had already attempted to negotiate peace with Roosevelt on terms ‘virtually identical’ to the ones which were accepted by the U.S. This is important evidence to refute the argument of pro-bombers that the bombing was necessary in order to bring the war to a close in terms which were favorable to the Allies. If the United States was willing to accept in August the same terms the Japanese had offered in January, there must be some other reason than the expedition of the conflict for the dropping of the bomb. While Pavlik does not delve into the answer to this question, he mentions that Russian expansionist interests in the region and the fact that Stalin was consulted when it came to this decision are the reasons why the initial peace offer was …show more content…
They point out to the imminence of a Japanese surrender and the immorality of the civilian killing as arguments against it, and suggest it was done for political reasons. The antithesis camp argues that America was justified in bombing Hiroshima. Their main points are that it saved countless American and also Japanese lives, it was not intentionally targeted at civilians, and was the quickest way to bring the war to an end. The strongest point made the anti-bombing group is the argument that the bomb was dropped solely for political reasons, and the strongest argument for the antithesis is the research that a land invasion of Japan would have indeed cost millions of