atomic bomb essays

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Atomic Bomb History

By: History.com Editors

Updated: November 9, 2022 | Original: September 6, 2017

The atomic bomb and nuclear bombs are powerful weapons that use nuclear reactions as their source of explosive energy. Scientists first developed nuclear weapons technology during World War II. Atomic bombs have been used only twice in war—both times by the United States against Japan at the end of World War II, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A period of nuclear proliferation followed that war, and during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union vied for supremacy in a global nuclear arms race.

Nuclear Bombs and Hydrogen Bombs

A discovery by nuclear physicists in a laboratory in Berlin, Germany, in 1938 made the first atomic bomb possible, after Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassman discovered nuclear fission.

In nuclear fission, the nucleus of an atom of radioactive material splits into two or more smaller nuclei, which causes a sudden, powerful release of energy. The discovery of nuclear fission opened up the possibility of nuclear technologies, including weapons.

Atomic bombs get their energy from fission reactions. Thermonuclear weapons, or hydrogen bombs, rely on a combination of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is another type of reaction in which two lighter atoms combine to release energy.

Manhattan Project

On December 28, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the formation of the Manhattan Project to bring together various scientists and military officials working on nuclear research.

The Manhattan Project was the code name for the American-led effort to develop a functional atomic bomb during World War II . The project was started in response to fears that German scientists had been working on a weapon using nuclear technology since the 1930s.

Who Invented the Atomic Bomb?

Much of the work in the Manhattan Project was performed in Los Alamos, New Mexico , under the direction of theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer , the “ father of the atomic bomb .”

On July 16, 1945, in a remote desert location near Alamogordo, New Mexico , the first atomic bomb was successfully detonated—the Trinity Test . It created an enormous mushroom cloud some 40,000 feet high and ushered in the Atomic Age.

Hiroshima And Nagasaki Bombings

Scientists at Los Alamos had developed two distinct types of atomic bombs by 1945—a uranium-based design called “the Little Boy” and a plutonium-based weapon called “the Fat Man.” (Uranium and plutonium are both radioactive elements.)

While the war in Europe had ended in April, fighting in the Pacific continued between Japanese forces and U.S. troops. In late July, President Harry Truman called for Japan’s surrender with the Potsdam Declaration . The declaration promised “prompt and utter destruction” if Japan did not surrender.

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped its first atomic bomb from a B-29 bomber plane called the Enola Gay over the city of Hiroshima , Japan. The “Little Boy” exploded with about 13 kilotons of force, leveling five square miles of the city and killing 80,000 people instantly. Tens of thousands more would later die from radiation exposure.

When the Japanese did not immediately surrender, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb three days later on the city of Nagasaki . The “Fat Man” killed an estimated 40,000 people on impact.

Nagasaki had not been the primary target for the second bomb. American bombers initially had targeted the city of Kokura, where Japan had one of its largest munitions plants, but smoke from firebombing raids obscured the sky over Kokura. American planes then turned toward their secondary target, Nagasaki.

Citing the devastating power of “a new and most cruel bomb,” Japanese Emperor Hirohito announced his country’s surrender on August 15—a day that became known as ‘ V-J Day ’—ending World War II.

The Cold War

The United States was the only country with nuclear weaponry in the years immediately following World War II. The Soviet Union initially lacked the knowledge and raw materials to build nuclear warheads.

Within just a few years, however, the U.S.S.R. had obtained—through a network of spies engaging in international espionage—blueprints of a fission-style bomb and discovered regional sources of uranium in Eastern Europe. On August 29, 1949, the Soviets tested their first nuclear bomb.

The United States responded by launching a program in 1950 to develop more advanced thermonuclear weapons. The Cold War arms race had begun, and nuclear testing and research became high-profile goals for several countries, especially the United States and the Soviet Union.

Cuban Missile Crisis

Over the next few decades, each world superpower would stockpile tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. Other countries, including Great Britain, France, and China, developed nuclear weapons during this time, too.

To many observers, the world appeared on the brink of nuclear war in October of 1962. The Soviet Union had installed nuclear-armed missiles on Cuba, just 90 miles from U.S. shores. This resulted in a 13-day military and political standoff known as the Cuban Missile Crisis .

President John F. Kennedy enacted a naval blockade around Cuba and made it clear the United States was prepared to use military force if necessary to neutralize the perceived threat.

Disaster was avoided when the United States agreed to an offer made by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to remove the Cuban missiles in exchange for the United States promising not to invade Cuba.

Three Mile Island

Many Americans became concerned about the health and environmental effects of nuclear fallout—the radiation left in the environment after a nuclear blast—in the wake of World War II and after extensive nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific during the 1940s and 1950s.

The antinuclear movement emerged as a social movement in 1961 at the height of the Cold War. During Women Strike for Peace demonstrations on November 1, 1961 co-organized by activist Bella Abzug , roughly 50,000 women marched in 60 cities in the United States to demonstrate against nuclear weapons.

The antinuclear movement captured national attention again in the 1970s and 1980s with high profile protests against nuclear reactors after the Three Mile Island accident—a nuclear meltdown at a Pennsylvania power plant in 1979.

In 1982, a million people marched in New York City protesting nuclear weapons and urging an end to the Cold War nuclear arms race. It was one of the largest political protests in United States history.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

The United States and Soviet Union took the lead in negotiating an international agreement to halt the further spread of nuclear weapons in 1968.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (also called the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT) went into effect in 1970. It separated the world’s countries into two groups—nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states.

Nuclear weapons states included the five countries that were known to possess nuclear weapons at the time—the United States, the U.S.S.R., Great Britain, France and China.

According to the treaty, nuclear weapons states agreed not to use nuclear weapons or help non-nuclear states acquire nuclear weapons. They also agreed to gradually reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons with the eventual goal of total disarmament. Non-nuclear weapons states agreed not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, there were still thousands of nuclear weapons scattered across Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Many of the weapons were located in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. These weapons were deactivated and returned to Russia.

Illegal Nuclear Weapon States

Some countries wanted the option of developing their own nuclear weapons arsenal and never signed the NPT. India was the first country outside of the NPT to test a nuclear weapon in 1974.

Other non-signatories to the NTP include: Pakistan, Israel and South Sudan. Pakistan has a known nuclear weapons program. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though has never officially confirmed or denied the existence of a nuclear weapons program. South Sudan is not known or believed to possess nuclear weapons.

North Korea

North Korea initially signed the NPT treaty, but announced its withdrawal from the agreement in 2003. Since 2006, North Korea has openly tested nuclear weapons, drawing sanctions from various nations and international bodies.

North Korea tested two long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles in 2017—one reportedly capable of reaching the United States mainland. In September 2017, North Korea claimed it had tested a hydrogen bomb that could fit on top an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Iran, while a signatory of the NPT, has said it has the capability to initiate production of nuclear weapons at short notice.

Pioneering Nuclear Science: The Discovery of Nuclear Fission. International Atomic Energy Agency . The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. NobelPrize.org . Here are the facts about North Korea’s nuclear test. NPR .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 7

• Beginning of World War II
• 1940 - Axis gains momentum in World War II
• 1941 Axis momentum accelerates in WW2
• Pearl Harbor
• FDR and World War II
• Japanese internment
• American women and World War II
• 1942 Tide turning in World War II in Europe
• World War II in the Pacific in 1942
• 1943 Axis losing in Europe
• American progress in the Pacific in 1944
• 1944 - Allies advance further in Europe
• 1945 - End of World War II

The Manhattan Project and the atomic bomb

• The United Nations
• The Second World War
• Shaping American national identity from 1890 to 1945
• The United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, killing 210,000 people—children, women, and men.
• President Truman authorized the use of the atom bombs in an effort to bring about Japan’s surrender in the Second World War . In the days following the bombings Japan surrendered.
• The Manhattan Project was the US government program during World War II that developed and built these first atomic bombs.
• Detonation of these first nuclear bombs signaled arrival of a frightening new Atomic Age .

The Manhattan Project

Hiroshima and nagasaki, was the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki necessary, what do you think.

• David M. Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 658-668.
• See Kennedy, Freedom from Fear , 658-668.
• See Ira Katznelson, Fear Itself: The New Deal and The Origins of Our Time (New York: Liveright Publishing, 2013), 349.
• See Katznelson, Fear Itself , 350.
• Katznelson, Fear Itself , 614.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED J. Edgar Hoover’s 50-Year Career of Blackmail, Entrapment, and Taking Down Communist Spies

The Encyclopedia: One Book’s Quest to Hold the Sum of All Knowledge PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED

The Atomic Bomb: Arguments in Support Of The Decision

Note: This section is intended as an objective overview of the decision to use the atomic bomb for new students of the issue. For the other side of the issue, go here.

Argument #1: The Atomic Bomb Saved American Lives

The main argument in support of the decision to use the atomic bomb is that it saved American lives which would otherwise have been lost in two D-Day-style land invasions of the main islands of the Japanese homeland. The first, against the Southern island of Kyushu, had been scheduled for November 1 (Operation Torch). The second, against the main island of Honshu would take place in the spring of 1946 (Operation Coronet). The two operations combined were codenamed Operation Downfall. There is no doubt that a land invasion would have incurred extremely high casualties, for a variety of reasons. For one, Field Marshall Hisaichi Terauchi had ordered that all 100,000 Allied prisoners of war be executed if the Americans invaded. Second, it was apparent to the Japanese as much as to the Americans that there were few good landing sites, and that Japanese forces would be concentrated there. Third, there was real concern in Washington that the Japanese had made a determination to fight literally to the death. The Japanese saw suicide as an honorable alternative to surrender. The term they used was gyokusai, or, “shattering of the jewel.” It was the same rationale for their use of the so-called banzai charges employed early in the war. In his 1944 “emergency declaration,” Prime Minister Hideki Tojo had called for “100 million gyokusai,” and that the entire Japanese population be prepared to die.

For American military commanders, determining the strength of Japanese forces and anticipating the level of civilian resistance were the keys to preparing casualty projections.  Numerous studies were conducted, with widely varying results. Some of the studies estimated American casualties for just the first 30 days of Operation Torch. Such a study done by General MacArthur’s staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties.

U.S. Army Chief of Staff George Marshall thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days, while Admiral Ernest King, Chief of Naval Operations, put them between 31,000 and 41,000. Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Chester Nimitz, whose staff conducted their own study, estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea from Kamikaze attacks.

Studies estimating total U.S. casualties were equally varied and no less grim.  One by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945 resulted in an estimate of 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities. Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief, estimated 268,000 casualties (35%).  Former President Herbert Hoover sent a memorandum to President Truman and Secretary of War Stimson, with “conservative” estimates of 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities. A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff by William Shockley estimated the costs at 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities.

General Douglas MacArthur had been chosen to command US invasion forces for Operation Downfall, and his staff conducted their own study.  In June their prediction was American casualties of 105,000 after 120 days of combat.  Mid-July intelligence estimates placed the number of Japanese soldiers in the main islands at under 2,000,000, but that number increased sharply in the weeks that followed as more units were repatriated from Asia for the final homeland defense.   By late July, MacArthur’s Chief of Intelligence, General Charles Willoughby, revised the estimate and predicted American casualties on Kyushu alone (Operation Torch) would be 500,000, or ten times what they had been on Okinawa.

All of the military planners based their casualty estimates on the ongoing conduct of the war and the evolving tactics employed by the Japanese.   In the first major land combat at Guadalcanal, the Japanese had employed night-time banzai charges—direct frontal assaults against entrenched machine gun positions.  This tactic had worked well against enemy forces in their Asian campaigns, but against the Marines, the Japanese lost about 2,500 troops and killed only 80 Marines.

At Tarawa in May 1943, The Japanese modified their tactics and put up a fierce resistance to the Marine amphibious landings.  Once the battered Marines made it ashore, the 4,500 well-supplied and well-prepared Japanese defenders fought almost to the last man.  Only 17 Japanese soldiers were alive at the end of the battle.

On Saipan in July 1944, the Japanese again put up fanatical resistance, even though a decisive U.S. Navy victory over the Japanese fleet had ended any hope of their resupply.  U.S. forces had to burnthen out of holes, caves, and bunkers with flamethrowers. Japanese forces staged multiple banzai attacks. At the end of the battle the Japanese staged a final banzai that included wounded men, some of them on crutches.  Marines were forced to mow them down.  Meanwhile, on the north end of the island a thousand civilians threw committed suicide by jumping from the cliff to the rocks below after being promised an honorable afterlife by Emperor Hirohito, and after being threatened with death by the Japanese army. In the fall of 1944, Marines landed on the small island of Peleliu, just east of the Philippines, for what was supposed to be a four-day mission. The battle lasted two months. At Peleliu, the Japanese unveiled a new defense strategy. Colonel Kunio Nakagawa, the Japanese commander, constructed a system of heavily fortified bunkers, caves, and underground positions, and waited for the Marines to attack them, and they replaced the fruitless banzai attacks with coordinated counterattacks. Much of the island was solid volcanic rock, making the digging of foxholes with the standard-issue entrenching tool impossible. When the Marines sought cover and concealment, the terrain’s jagged, sharp edges cut up their uniforms, bodies, and equipment. The plan was to make Peleliu a bloody war of attrition, and it worked well. The fight for Umurbrogol Mountain is considered by many to be the most difficult fight that the U.S. military encountered in the entire Second World War. At Peleliu, U.S. forces suffered 50% casualties, including 1,794 killed. Japanese losses were 10,695 killed and only 202 captured. After securing the Philippines and delivering yet another shattering blow to the Japanese navy, the Americans landed next on Iwo Jima in February 1945, where the main mission was to secure three Japanese airfields. U.S. Marines again faced an enemy well entrenched in a vast network of bunkers, hidden artillery, and miles of underground tunnels. American casualties on Iwo Jima were 6,822 killed or missing and 19,217 wounded. Japanese casualties were about 18,000 killed or missing, and only 216 captured.  Meanwhile, another method of Japanese resistance was emerging.  With the Japanese navy neutralized, the Japanese resorted to suicide missions designed to turn piloted aircraft into guided bombs. A kamikaze air attack on ships anchored at sea on February 21 sunk an escort carrier and did severe damage to the fleet carrier Saratoga. It was a harbinger of things to come.

After Iwo Jima, only the island of Okinawa stood between U.S. forces and Japan. Once secured, Okinawa would be used as a staging area for Operation Torch. Situated less than 400 miles from Kyushu, the island had been Japanese territory since 1868, and it was home to several hundred thousand Japanese civilians. The Battle of Okinawa was fought from April 1 – June 22, 1945. Five U.S. Army divisions, three Marine divisions, and dozens of Navy vessels participated in the 82-day battle. The Japanese stepped up their use of kamikaze attacks, this time sending them at U.S. ships in waves. Seven major kamikaze attacks took place involving 1,500 planes. They took a devastating toll—both physically and psychologically. The U.S. Navy’s dead, at 4,907, exceeded its wounded, primarily because of the kamikaze.

On land, U.S. forces again faced heavily fortified and well-constructed defenses. The Japanese extracted heavy American casualties at one line of defense, and then as the Americans began to gain the upper hand, fell back to another series of fortifications. Japanese defenders and civilians fought to the death (even women with spears) or committed suicide rather than be captured. The civilians had been told the Americans would go on a rampage of killing and raping. About 95,000 Japanese soldiers were killed, and possibly as many as 150,000 civilians died, or 25% of the civilian population. And the fierce resistance took a heavy toll on the Americans; 12,513 were killed on Okinawa, and another 38,916 were wounded.

The increased level of Japanese resistance on Okinawa was of particular significance to military planners, especially the resistance of civilians. This was a concern for the American troops as well. In the Ken Burns documentary The War (2007), a veteran Marine pilot of the Okinawa campaign relates his thoughts at the time about invading the home islands:

By then, our sense of the strangeness of the Japanese opposition had become stronger. And I could imagine every farmer with his pitchfork coming at my guts; every pretty girl with a hand grenade strapped to her bottom, or something; that everyone would be an enemy.

Although the estimates of American casualties in Operation Downfall vary widely, no one doubts that they would have been significant.  A sobering indicator of the government’s expectations is that 500,000 Purple Heart medals (awarded for combat-related wounds) were manufactured in preparation for Operation Downfall.

Argument #1.1: The Atomic Bomb Saved Japanese Lives

A concurrent, though ironic argument supporting the use of the Atomic bomb is that because of the expected Japanese resistance to an invasion of the home island, its use actually saved Japanese lives. Military planners included Japanese casualties in their estimates.  The study done for Secretary of War Stimson predicted five to ten million Japanese fatalities.  There is support for the bomb even among some Japanese.  In 1983, at the annual observance of Hiroshima’s destruction, an aging Japanese professor recalled that at war’s end, due to the extreme food rationing, he had weighed less than 90 pounds and could scarcely climb a flight of stairs. “I couldn’t have survived another month,” he said.  “If the military had its way, we would have fought until all 80 million Japanese were dead.  Only the atomic bomb saved me.  Not me alone, but many Japanese, ironically speaking, were saved by the atomic bomb.”

Argument #1.2: It Was Necessary to Shorten the War

Another concurrent argument supporting the use of the Atomic bomb is that it achieved its primary objective of shortening the war. The bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9. The next day, the Japanese requested a halting of the war.  On August 14 Emperor Hirohito announced to the Japanese people that they would surrender, and the United States celebrated V-J Day (Victory over Japan).  Military planners had wanted the Pacific war finished no later than a year after the fall of Nazi Germany. The rationale was the belief that in a democracy, there is only so much that can reasonably be asked of its citizen soldiers (and of the voting public).

As Army Chief of Staff George Marshall later put it, “a democracy cannot fight a Seven Years’ war.” By the summer of 1945 the American military was exhausted, and the sheer number of troops needed for Operation Downfall meant that not only would the troops in the Pacific have to make one more landing, but even many of those troops whose valor and sacrifice had brought an end to the Nazi Third Reich were to be sent Pacific.  In his 2006 memoir, former 101st Airborne battalion commander Richard Winters reflected on the state of his men as they played baseball in the summer of 1945 in occupied Austria (Winters became something of a celebrity after his portrayal in the extremely popular 2001 HBO series Band of Brothers):

During the baseball games when the men were stripped to their waists, or wearing only shorts, the sight of all those battle scars made me conscious of the fact that other than a handful of men in the battalion who had survived all four campaigns, only a few were lucky enough to be without at least one scar.  Some men had two, three, even four scars on their chests, backs, arms, or legs. Keep in mind that…I was looking only at the men who were not seriously wounded.

Supporters of the bomb wonder if it was reasonable to ask even more sacrifice of these men. Since these veterans are the men whose lives (or wholeness) were, by this argument, saved by the bomb, it is relevant to survey their thoughts on the matter, as written in various war memoirs going back to the 1950s.  The record is mixed. For example, despite Winters’ observation above, he seemed to have reservations about the bomb: “Three days later, on August 14, Japan surrendered.  Apparently the atomic bomb carried as much punch as a regiment of paratroopers.  It seemed inhumane for our national leaders to employ either weapon on the human race.”

His opinion is not shared by other members of Easy Company, some of whom published their own memoirs after the interest generated by Band of Brothers.  William “Wild Bill” Guarnere expressed a very blunt opinion about the bomb in 2007:

We were on garrison duty in France for about a month, and in August, we got great news: we weren’t going to the Pacific.  The U.S. dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, the Japanese surrendered, and the war was over.  We were so relieved.  It was the greatest thing that could have happened. Somebody once said to me that the bomb was the worst thing that ever happened, that the U.S. could have found other ways.  I said, “Yeah, like what? Me and all my buddies jumping in Tokyo, and the Allied forces going in, and all of us getting killed?  Millions more Allied soldiers getting killed?”  When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor were they concerned about how many lives they took?  We should have dropped eighteen bombs as far as I’m concerned.  The Japanese should have stayed out of it if they didn’t want bombs dropped. The end of the war was good news to us.  We knew we were going home soon.

Those soldiers with extensive combat experience in the Pacific theater and with first-hand knowledge of Japanese resistance also express conflicting thoughts about the bomb. All of them write of the relief and joy they felt upon first hearing the news. William Manchester, in Goodbye, Darkness: a Memoir of the Pacific War, wrote, “You think of the lives which would have been lost in an invasion of Japan’s home islands—a staggering number of American lives but millions more of Japanese—and you thank God for the atomic bomb.”

But in preparation for writing his 1980 memoir, when Manchester visited Tinian, the small Pacific island from which the Hiroshima mission was launched, he reflected on the “global angst” that Tinian represents.  He writes that while the battle to take Tinian itself was relatively easy, “the aftermath was ominous.” It was also from Tinian that napalm was dropped on Japanese cities, which Manchester describes as “one of thecruelest instruments of war.”  Manchester continues:

This is where the nuclear shadow first appeared.  I feel forlorn, alienated, wholly without empathy for the men who did what they did.  This was not my war…Standing there, notebook in hand; you are shrouded in absolute, inexpressible loneliness.

Two other Pacific memoirs, both published decades ago, resurged in popularity in 2010, owing to their authors’ portrayal in another HBO mini-series, The Pacific (2010).  Eugene Sledge published his combat memoir in 1981.  He describes the moment when they first heard about the atom bomb, having just survived the Okinawa campaign:

We received the news with quiet disbelief coupled with an indescribable sense of relief.  We thought the Japanese would never surrender.  Many refused to believe it.  Sitting around in stunned silence, we remembered our dead.  So many dead.  So many maimed.  So many bright futures consigned to the ashes of the past.  So many dreams lost in the madness that had engulfed us.  Except for a few widely scattered shouts of joy, the survivors sat hollow-eyed and silent, trying to comprehend a world without war.

Robert Leckie, like Manchester, seems to have had conflicting feelings about the bomb in his 1957 memoir Helmet for my Pillow.  When the bomb was dropped, Leckie was recovering from wounds suffered on Peleliu:

Suddenly, secretly, covertly–I rejoiced. For as I lay there in that hospital, I had faced the bleak prospect of returning to the Pacific and the war and the law of averages. But now, I knew the Japanese would have to lay down their arms. The war was over. I had survived. Like a man wielding a submachine gun to defend himself against an unarmed boy, I had survived. So I rejoiced.

But just a paragraph later, Leckie reflects writes:

The suffering of those who lived, the immolation [death by burning] of those who died–that must now be placed in the scales of God’s justice that began to tip so awkwardly against us when the mushroom rose over the world…Dear Father, forgive us for that awful cloud.

 Argument #1.3: Only the Bomb Convinced the Emperor to Intervene

A third concurrent argument defending the bomb is the observation that even after the first two bombs were dropped, and the Russians had declared war, the Japanese still almost did not surrender. The Japanese cabinet convened in emergency session on August 7. Military authorities refused to concede that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic in nature and refused to consider surrender. The following day, Emperor Hirohito privately expressed to Prime Minister Togo his determination that the war should end and the cabinet was convened again on August 9. At this point Prime Minister Suzuki was in agreement, but a unanimous decision was required and three of the military chiefs still refused to admit defeat.

Some in the leadership argued that there was no way the Americans could have refined enough fissionable material to produce more than one bomb.  But then the bombing of Nagasaki had demonstrated otherwise, and a lie told by a downed American pilot convinced War Minister Korechika Anami that the Americans had as many as a hundred bombs. (The official scientific report confirming the bomb was atomic arrived at Imperial Headquarters on the 10th). Even so, hours of meetings and debates lasting well into the early morning hours of the 10th still resulted in a 3-3 deadlock.  Prime Minister Suzuki then took the unprecedented step of asking Emperor Hirohito, who never spoke at cabinet meetings, to break the deadlock. Hirohito responded:

I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer.

In his 1947 article published in Harper’s, former Secretary of War Stimson expressed his opinion that only the atomic bomb convinced the emperor to step in: “All the evidence I have seen indicates that the controlling factor in the final Japanese decision to accept our terms of surrender was the atomic bomb.”

Emperor Hirohito agreed that Japan should accept the Potsdam Declaration (the terms of surrender proposed by the Americans, discussed below), and then recorded a message on phonograph to the Japanese people.

Japanese hard-liners attempted to suppress this recording, and late on the evening of the 14th, attempted a coup against the Emperor, presumably to save him from himself. The coup failed, but the fanaticism required to make such an attempt is further evidence to bomb supporters that, without the bomb, Japan would never have surrendered. In the end, the military leaders accepted surrender partly because of the Emperor’s intervention, and partly because the atomic bomb helped them “save face” by rationalizing that they had not been defeated by because of a lack of spiritual power or strategic decisions, but by science. In other words, the Japanese military hadn’t lost the war, Japanese science did.

Atomic Bomb Argument 2: The Decision was made by a Committee of Shared Responsibility

Supporters of President Truman’s decision to use atomic weapons point out that the President did not act unilaterally, but rather was supported by a committee of shared responsibility.  The Interim Committee, created in May 1945, was primarily tasked with providing advice to the President on all matters pertaining to nuclear energy.  Most of its work focused on the role of the bomb after the war.  But the committee did consider the question of its use against Japan.

Secretary of War Henry Stimson chaired the committee.  Truman’s personal representative was James F. Byrnes, former U.S. Senator and Truman’s pick to be Secretary of State.  The committee sought the advice of four physicists from the Manhattan Project, including Enrico Fermi and J. Robert Oppenheimer.  The scientific panel wrote, “We see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.” The final recommendation to the President was arrived at on June 1 and is described in the committee meeting log:

Mr. Byrnes recommended, and the Committee agreed, that the Secretary of War should be advised that, while recognizing that the final selection of the target was essentially a military decision, the present view of the Committee was that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible; that it be used on a war plant surrounded by workers’ homes; and that it be used without prior warning.

On June 21, the committee reaffirmed its recommendation with the following wording:

…that the weapon be used against Japan at the earliest opportunity, that it be used without warning, and that it be used on a dual target, namely, a military installation or war plant surrounded by or adjacent to homes or other buildings most susceptible to damage.

Supporters of Truman’s decision thus argue that the President, in dropping the bomb, was simply following the recommendation of the most experienced military, political, and scientific minds in the nation, and to do otherwise would have been grossly negligent.

Atomic Bomb Argument #3: The Japanese Were Given Fair Warning (Potsdam Declaration & Leaflets)

Supporters of Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb point out that Japan had been given ample opportunity to surrender. On July 26, with the knowledge that the Los Alamos test had been successful, President Truman and the Allies issued a final ultimatum to Japan, known as the Potsdam Declaration (Truman was in Potsdam, Germany at the time).  Although it had been decided by Prime Minster Churchill and President Roosevelt back at the Casablanca Conference that the Allies would accept only unconditional surrender from the Axis, the Potsdam Declaration does lay out some terms of surrender.  The government responsible for the war would be dismantled, there would be a military occupation of Japan, and the nation would be reduced in size to pre-war borders. The military, after being disarmed, would be permitted to return home to lead peaceful lives.  Assurance was given that the allies had no desire to enslave or destroy the Japanese people, but there would be war crimes trials.  Peaceful industries would be allowed to produce goods, and basic freedoms of speech, religion, and thought would be introduced.  The document concluded with an ultimatum: “We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces…the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”  To bomb supporters, the Potsdam Declaration was m5ore than fair in its surrender terms and in its warning of what would happen should those terms be rejected.  The Japanese did not respond to the declaration. Additionally, bomb supporters argue that Japanese civilians were warned in advance through millions of leaflets dropped on Japanese cities by U.S. warplanes. In the months preceding the atomic bombings, some 63 million leaflets were dropped on 35 cities target for destruction by U.S. air forces. The Japanese people generally regarded the information on these leaflets as truthful, but anyone caught in possession of one was subject to arrest by the government. Some of the leaflets mentioned the terms of surrender offered in the Potsdam Declaration and urged the civilians to convince Japanese government to accept them—an unrealistic expectation to say the least.

Generally, the leaflets warned that the city was considered a target and urged the civilian populations to evacuate. However, no leaflets specifically warning about a new destructive weapon were dropped until after Hiroshima, and it’s also not clear where U.S. officials thought the entire urban population of 35 Japanese cities could viably relocate to even if they did read and heed the warnings.

Argument 4: The atom bomb was in retaliation for Japanese barbarism

Although it is perhaps not the most civilized of arguments, Americans with an “eye for an eye” philosophy of justice argue that the atomic bomb was payback for the undeniably brutal, barbaric, criminal conduct of the Japanese Army.  Pumped up with their own version of master race theories, the Japanese military committed atrocities throughout Asia and the Pacific. They raped women, forced others to become sexual slaves, murdered civilians, and tortured and executed prisoners. Most famously, in a six-week period following the Japanese capture of the Chinese city of Nanjing, Japanese soldiers (and some civilians) went on a rampage.  They murdered several hundred thousand unarmed civilians, and raped between 20,000-80,000 men, women and children.

With regards to Japanese conduct specific to Americans, there is the obvious “back-stabbing” aspect of the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. That the Japanese government was still engaged in good faith diplomatic negotiations with the State Department at the very moment the attack was underway is a singular instance of barbaric behavior that bomb supporters point to as just cause for using the atom bomb. President Truman said as much when he made his August 6 radio broadcast to the nation about Hiroshima: “The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold.”

The infamous “Bataan Death March” provides further rationale for supporters of this argument. Despite having a presence in the Philippines since 1898 and a long-standingstrategic plan for a theoretical war with Japan, the Americans were caught unprepared for the Japanese invasion of the main island of Luzon. After retreating to the rugged Bataan peninsula and holding out for months, it became evident that America had no recourse but to abandon them to their fate.   After General MacArthur removed his command to Australia under the cover of darkness, 78,000 American and Filipino troops surrendered to the Japanese, the largest surrender in American history.

Despite promises from Japanese commanders, the American prisoners were treated inhumanely.  They were force-marched back up the peninsula toward trains and a POW camp beyond.  Along the way they were beaten, deprived of food & water, tortured, buried alive, and executed.  The episode became known at The Bataan Death March. Thousands perished along the way.  And when the survivors reached their destination, Camp O’Donnell, many thousands more died from disease, starvation, and forced labor.  Perhaps fueled by humiliation and a sense of helplessness, few events of WWII aroused such fury in Americans as did the Bataan Death March.  To what extent it may have been a factor in President Truman’s decision is unknown, but it is frequently cited, along with Pearl Harbor, as justification for the payback given out at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to those who started the war. The remaining two arguments in support of the bomb are based on consideration of the unfortunate predicament facing President Truman as the man who inherited both the White House and years of war policy from the late President Roosevelt.

Argument 5: The Manhattan Project Expense Required Use of the Bomb

The Manhattan Project had been initiated by Roosevelt back in 1939, five years before Truman was asked to be on the Democratic ticket.  By the time Roosevelt died in April 1945, almost 2 billion dollars of taxpayer money had been spent on the project.  The Manhattan Project was the most expensive government project in history at that time.  The President’s Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, said, “I know FDR would have used it in a minute to prove that he had not wasted $2 billion.” Bomb supporters argue that the pressure to honor the legacy of FDR, who had been in office for so long that many Americans could hardly remember anyone else ever being president, was surely enormous. The political consequences of such a waste of expenditures, once the public found out, would have been disastrous for the Democrats for decades to come. (The counter-argument, of course, is that fear of losing an election is no justification for using such a weapon).

Argument 6: Truman Inherited the War Policy of Bombing Cities

Likewise, the decision to intentionally target civilians, however morally questionable and distasteful, had begun under President Roosevelt, and it was not something that President Truman could realistically be expected to roll back. Precedents for bombing civilians began as early as 1932, when Japanese planes bombed Chapei, the Chinese sector of Shanghai.  Italian forces bombed civilians as part of their conquest of Ethiopia in 1935-1936.  Germany had first bombed civilians as part of an incursion into the Spanish Civil War. At the outbreak of WWII in September 1939, President Roosevelt was troubled by the prospect of what seemed likely to be Axis strategy, and on the day of the German invasion of Poland, he wrote to the governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Great Britain.  Roosevelt said that these precedents for attacking civilians from the air, “has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.” He went on to describe such actions as “inhuman barbarism,” and appealed to the war-makers not to target civilian populations. But Germany bombed cities in Poland in 1939, destroyed the Dutch city of Rotterdam in 1940, and infamously “blitzed” London, Coventry, and other British cities in the summer and fall of the 1940. The British retaliated by bombing German cities.  Allied war leaders rationalized that to win the war, it was necessary to cripple the enemy’s capacity to make war. Since cities contained factories that produced war materials, and since civilians worked in factories, the population of cities (including the “workers’ dwellings” surrounding those factories) were legitimate military targets.

Despite Roosevelt’s “appeal” in 1939, he and the nation had long crossed that moral line by war’s end.  This fact perhaps reveals the psychological effects of killing on all of the war’s participants, and says something about the moral atmosphere in which President Truman found himself upon the President’s death. On February 13, 1945, 1,300 U.S. and British heavy bombers firebombed the German city of Dresden, the center of German art and culture, creating a firestorm that destroyed 15 square miles and killed 25,000 civilians.  Meanwhile, still five weeks before Truman took office; American bombers dropped 2,000 tons of napalm on Tokyo, creating a firestorm with hurricane-force winds.  Flight crews flying high over the 16 square miles of devastation reported smelling burning fleshbelow.  Approximately 125,000 Japanese civilians died in that raid.  By the time the atomic bomb was ready, similar attacks had been launched on the Japanese cities of Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe.  Quickly running out of targets, the B-29 bombers went back over Tokyo and killed another 80,000 civilians.  Atomic Bomb supporters argue that, although this destruction is distasteful by post-war sensibilities, it had become the norm long before President Truman took office, and the atomic bomb was just one more weapon in the arsenal to be employed under this policy.  To expect the new president, who had to make decisions under enormous pressure, to roll back this policy—to roll back the social norm—was simply not realistic.

 Sources Used and Recommended

This article is part of our larger educational resource on World War Two. For a comprehensive list of World War 2 facts, including the primary actors in the war, causes, a comprehensive timeline, and bibliography, click here.

Cite This Article

• How Much Can One Individual Alter History? More and Less...
• Why Did Hitler Hate Jews? We Have Some Answers
• Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb
• Is Russia Communist Today? Find Out Here!
• Phonetic Alphabet: How Soldiers Communicated
• How Many Americans Died in WW2? Here Is A Breakdown

• TeachableMoment

Practice DBQ: The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima & Nagasaki

Help your students prepare for the NY Regents Exam with these document-based question exercises modeled closely on the format used in the exam.

• Nuclear Weapons

Directions:

Read/view the documents in Part A (Documents 1-7) and answer the question(s) after each. Some of these documents have been edited for the purpose of this exercise. As you think about each document, take into account both the source and any point of view that may be presented in it.

Then, in Part B, use information from the documents in Part A and your knowledge of history, geography, and current events to write a well-organized essay in which you:

• Discuss the different perspectives on the U.S. decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.
• Evaluate the moral implications of the decision. Was the decision justified?

Historical Context: The U.S. decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 has generated much controversy over the years. Some argue that the bombing was necessary to end World War II, while others believe that more than 200,000 civilians died in vain.

PART A - SHORT ANSWER

The documents below relate to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Examine each document carefully and then answer the question or questions that follow.

"I had then set up a committee of top men and had asked them to study with great care the implications the new weapons might have for us. It was their recommendation that the bomb be used against the enemy as soon as it could be done. They recommended further that it should be used without specific warning... I had realized, of course, that an atomic bomb explosion would inflict damage and casualties beyond imagination. On the other hand, the scientific advisors of the committee reported... that no technical demonstration they might propose, such as over a deserted island, would be likely to bring the war to an end. It had to be used against an enemy target. The final decision of where and when to use the atomic bomb was up to me. Let there be no mistake about it. I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never doubted it should be used."

—President Harry S. Truman

Why did President Truman feel that the atomic bomb had to be used against enemy targets?

Document 2 "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender...

"In being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." — Admiral William E. Leahy, President Truman's Chief of Staff, in his memoirs "I Was There"

Why did Admiral Leahy feel the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was unnecessary?

Why did Admiral Leahy think the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ethically wrong?

"The face of war is the face of death; death is an inevitable part of every order that a wartime leader gives. The decision to use the atomic bomb was a decision that brought death to over a hundred thousand Japanese...

"But this deliberate, premeditated destruction was our least abhorrent alternative. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an end to the Japanese war. It stopped the fire raids, and the strangling blockade; it ended the ghastly specter of a clash of great land armies. In this last great action of the Second World War we were given final proof that war is death."

—Secretary of War Henry Stimson

Why did Stimson think the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible thing to do but better than any alternative?

"How can a human being with any claim to a sense of moral responsibility deliberately let loose an instrument of destruction which can at one stroke annihilate an appalling segment of mankind? This is not war: this is not even murder; this is pure nihilism. This is a crime against God and humanity which strikes at the very basis of moral existence. What meaning is there in any international law, in any rule of human conduct, in any concept of right and wrong, if the very foundations of morality are to be overthrown as the use of this instrument of total destruction threatens to do?"

— Nippon Times (Tokyo), August 10, 1945

What does the author mean by saying that dropping a nuclear bomb "strikes at the very basis of moral existence?"

"The day was August 6, 1945. I was a G.I. who had weathered the war in Europe and now awaited my place in the storming of Japan's home islands. On Truman's orders, the first atomic bomb ever wielded in war exploded over Hiroshima. For Americans in uniform and those who waited for them to come home, outrageous as this might appear from the moral heights of hindsight, it was a sunburst of deliverance." —Lester Bernstein, New York Times, 10/24/65

Why did Bernstein feel "a sunburst of deliverance" when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima?

"The view where a moment before all had been so bright and sunny was now dark and hazy... What had happened? All over the right side of my body I was bleeding... My private nurse set about examining my wounds without speaking a word. No one spoke... Why was everyone so quiet? The heat finally became too intense to endure... Those who could fled; those who could not perished...

Hiroshima was no longer a city but a burned-over prairie. To the east and to the west everything was flattened. The distant mountains seemed nearer than I could ever remember... How small Hiroshima was with its houses gone."

- Michihiko Hachiya, Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician August 6 - September 30, 1945

What observations did the doctor make about the effects of the bombing on his city?

Images of Nagasaki, 1945

Source: Yamahata photographs © Shogo Yamahata, The Day After the Nagasaki Bombing. The Japan Peace Museum ( www.peace-museum.org )

Describe the effects of the bombing, as seen in these photographs.

PART B - ESSAY

Directions Using information from the documents in Part A and your knowledge of history, geography, and current events, write a well-organized essay in which you:

Share this Page

• About George Orwell
• Partners and Sponsors
• Accessibility
• Upcoming events
• The Orwell Festival
• The Orwell Memorial Lectures
• Books by Orwell
• Essays and other works
• Encountering Orwell
• Orwell Live
• About the prizes
• Reporting Homelessness
• Enter the Prizes
• Previous winners
• Orwell Fellows
• Introduction
• Enter the Prize
• Terms and Conditions
• Volunteering
• About Feedback
• Responding to Feedback
• Start your journey
• Inspiration
• Find Your Form
• Start Writing
• Reading Recommendations
• Previous themes
• Our offer for teachers
• Lesson Plans
• Events and Workshops
• Orwell in the Classroom
• GCSE Practice Papers
• The Orwell Youth Fellows
• Paisley Workshops

The Orwell Foundation

• The Orwell Prizes
• The Orwell Youth Prize

You and the Atom Bomb

This material remains under copyright in some jurisdictions, including the US, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of  the Orwell Estate . The Orwell Foundation is an independent charity – please consider  making a donation  or becoming a Friend of the Foundation to help us maintain these resources for readers everywhere. 

Considering how likely we all are to be blown to pieces by it within the next five years, the atomic bomb has not roused so much discussion as might have been expected. The newspapers have published numerous diagrams, not very helpful to the average man, of protons and neutrons doing their stuff, and there has been much reiteration of the useless statement that the bomb “ought to be put under international control.” But curiously little has been said, at any rate in print, about the question that is of most urgent interest to all of us, namely: “How difficult are these things to manufacture?”

Such information as we – that is, the big public – possess on this subject has come to us in a rather indirect way, apropos of President Truman’s decision not to hand over certain secrets to the USSR. Some months ago, when the bomb was still only a rumour, there was a widespread belief that splitting the atom was merely a problem for the physicists, and that when they had solved it a new and devastating weapon would be within reach of almost everybody. (At any moment, so the rumour went, some lonely lunatic in a laboratory might blow civilisation to smithereens, as easily as touching off a firework.)

Had that been true, the whole trend of history would have been abruptly altered. The distinction between great states and small states would have been wiped out, and the power of the State over the individual would have been greatly weakened. However, it appears from President Truman’s remarks, and various comments that have been made on them, that the bomb is fantastically expensive and that its manufacture demands an enormous industrial effort, such as only three or four countries in the world are capable of making. This point is of cardinal importance, because it may mean that the discovery of the atomic bomb, so far from reversing history, will simply intensify the trends which have been apparent for a dozen years past.

It is a commonplace that the history of civilisation is largely the history of weapons. In particular, the connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon – so long as there is no answer to it – gives claws to the weak.

The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle . This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans – even Tibetans – could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one. There are fewer and fewer foci of power. Already, in 1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale, and now there are only three – ultimately, perhaps, only two. This trend has been obvious for years, and was pointed out by a few observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon – or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting – not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.

From various symptoms one can infer that the Russians do not yet possess the secret of making the atomic bomb; on the other hand, the consensus of opinion seems to be that they will possess it within a few years. So we have before us the prospect of two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them. It has been rather hastily assumed that this means bigger and bloodier wars, and perhaps an actual end to the machine civilisation. But suppose – and really this the likeliest development – that the surviving great nations make a tacit agreement never to use the atomic bomb against one another? Suppose they only use it, or the threat of it, against people who are unable to retaliate? In that case we are back where we were before, the only difference being that power is concentrated in still fewer hands and that the outlook for subject peoples and oppressed classes is still more hopeless.

When James Burnham wrote The Managerial Revolution it seemed probable to many Americans that the Germans would win the European end of the war, and it was therefore natural to assume that Germany and not Russia would dominate the Eurasian land mass, while Japan would remain master of East Asia. This was a miscalculation, but it does not affect the main argument. For Burnham’s geographical picture of the new world has turned out to be correct. More and more obviously the surface of the earth is being parcelled off into three great empires, each self-contained and cut off from contact with the outer world, and each ruled, under one disguise or another, by a self-elected oligarchy. The haggling as to where the frontiers are to be drawn is still going on, and will continue for some years, and the third of the three super-states – East Asia, dominated by China – is still potential rather than actual. But the general drift is unmistakable, and every scientific discovery of recent years has accelerated it.

We were once told that the aeroplane had “abolished frontiers”; actually it is only since the aeroplane became a serious weapon that frontiers have become definitely impassable. The radio was once expected to promote international understanding and co-operation; it has turned out to be a means of insulating one nation from another. The atomic bomb may complete the process by robbing the exploited classes and peoples of all power to revolt, and at the same time putting the possessors of the bomb on a basis of military equality. Unable to conquer one another, they are likely to continue ruling the world between them, and it is difficult to see how the balance can be upset except by slow and unpredictable demographic changes.

For forty or fifty years past, Mr. H. G. Wells and others have been warning us that man is in danger of destroying himself with his own weapons, leaving the ants or some other gregarious species to take over. Anyone who has seen the ruined cities of Germany will find this notion at least thinkable. Nevertheless, looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity. James Burnham’s theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications – that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of “cold war” with its neighbours.

Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national sovereignty and of the highly-centralised police State. If, as seems to be the case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a “peace that is no peace”.

Tribune , 19 October 1945

• Second Thoughts on James Burnham
• Become a Friend
• Become an International Friend

We use cookies. By browsing our site you agree to our use of cookies. Accept

Essay on Atomic Bomb

Students are often asked to write an essay on Atomic Bomb in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Atomic Bomb

What is an atomic bomb.

An atomic bomb is a powerful weapon. It uses nuclear reactions to release a lot of energy. This energy comes from the splitting of atoms, tiny particles that make up everything around us. This process is called nuclear fission.

History of the Atomic Bomb

The first atomic bomb was made during World War II, in a secret project called the Manhattan Project. The United States made it to end the war quickly. They dropped two bombs on Japan in 1945. These bombings ended the war, but also caused much destruction.

Effects of an Atomic Bomb

When an atomic bomb explodes, it creates a huge fireball and a shock wave. These can destroy buildings and harm people. It also releases harmful radiation. This can make people sick, or even cause death. It can also harm the environment.

Atomic Bomb Today

Today, many countries have atomic bombs. They are often seen as a way to prevent war, because no one wants to face their destructive power. But, there are also many people who want to get rid of these weapons, because of the danger they pose to the world.

250 Words Essay on Atomic Bomb

An atomic bomb is a powerful weapon that uses nuclear reactions to create a big explosion. It was first made during World War II. This bomb uses the energy stored in atoms, the tiny particles that make up everything around us.

How Does it Work?

The atomic bomb works on the principle of nuclear fission. In simple words, it’s like splitting an atom into two smaller atoms. When this split happens, a lot of energy is released. This energy is what causes the big explosion. The atoms used in these bombs are usually uranium or plutonium.

The First Atomic Bomb

The first atomic bomb was made by the United States during World War II. This project was called the Manhattan Project. The first bomb was tested in July 1945 in New Mexico. Soon after, two more bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Effects of Atomic Bomb

The effects of an atomic bomb are very harmful. The explosion can destroy buildings and kill many people. It also releases radiation, which can cause sickness and even death. The radiation can stay in the area for many years, making it dangerous for people to live there.

Today, many countries have atomic bombs. There are rules to stop countries from using these bombs because of the damage they can cause. These rules are part of treaties or agreements between countries. Still, the existence of these bombs is a big concern for world peace.

In conclusion, an atomic bomb is a powerful and dangerous weapon. It has had a big impact on our world history and continues to be a concern today.

500 Words Essay on Atomic Bomb

Introduction to atomic bomb.

An atomic bomb is a powerful weapon that uses nuclear reactions to create a big explosion. The energy comes from splitting atoms, a process called nuclear fission. The first atomic bomb was made during World War II.

The Making of the Atomic Bomb

The United States made the first atomic bomb during a project called the Manhattan Project. Many scientists worked together to create this weapon. They used uranium and plutonium, two types of elements, to make the bomb. These elements were chosen because they can start a chain reaction. This chain reaction releases a lot of energy quickly, causing a big explosion.

The Use of Atomic Bomb

The first time an atomic bomb was used was in 1945, during World War II. The United States dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. These bombings caused a lot of damage and killed many people. The bombs ended the war, but they also caused a lot of suffering.

The Impact of Atomic Bomb

The atomic bomb has a big impact. The explosion can destroy buildings and kill people. The heat from the explosion can cause fires. The radiation from the bomb can also make people sick. This sickness, called radiation sickness, can cause death. Even years after the bomb, people can still get sick from the radiation.

The Future of Atomic Bomb

Today, many countries have atomic bombs. There are rules to control who can have these weapons and how they can be used. These rules are important to prevent wars and protect people. But, there is still a risk. If these weapons are used again, it could cause a lot of damage and suffering.

The atomic bomb is a powerful weapon. It has changed the world in many ways. It ended a war, but it also caused a lot of harm. Today, it is important to remember the effects of the atomic bomb and work to prevent its use in the future.

This is a simple overview of the atomic bomb. There is a lot more to learn about this topic. But, hopefully, this gives you a good starting point. Remember, understanding our past can help us make better decisions in the future.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Hobby Travelling
• Essay on Athletes
• Essay on Astrophysics

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best nuclear weapon topic ideas & essay examples, 📌 simple & easy nuclear weapon essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on nuclear weapon, ❓ research questions about nuclear weapons.

• Was the US Justified in Dropping the Atomic Bomb? In addition to unleashing catastrophic damage upon the people of Japan, the dropping of the bombs was the beginning of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S.
• Means of Destruction & Atomic Bomb Use Politics This information relates to the slide concerning atomic energy, which also advocates for the participation of the Manhattan Project’s researchers and policy-makers in the decision to atomic bombing during World War II. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Truman’s Decision the Dropping an Atomic Bomb The operations planned for late 1945 and early 1946 were to be on mainland Japan, and the military fatalities on both sides, as well as civilian deaths, would have very certainly outweighed the losses caused […]
• Can a Nuclear Reactor Explode Like an Atomic Bomb? The fact is that a nuclear reactor is not designed in the same way as an atomic bomb, as such, despite the abundance of material that could cause a nuclear explosion, the means by which […]
• Ethics and Sustainability. Iran’s Nuclear Weapon The opponents of Iran’s nuclear program explain that the country’s nuclear power is a threat for the peace in the world especially with regards to the fact that Iran is a Muslim country, and its […]
• The Decision to Drop the Atom Bomb President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a decision of unprecedented complexity and gravity and, without a doubt, the most difficult decision of his life.
• E. B. Sledge’s Views on Dropping the A-Bomb There is a pointed effort to present to the reader the reality of war in all its starkness and raw horror. However, in the case of a war veteran like E.B.
• The Atomic Bomb of Hiroshima The effects of the bombing were devastating; the explosion had a blast equivalent to approximately 13 kilotons of TNT. Sasaki says that hospitals were teaming with the wounded people, those who managed to survive the […]
• Middle East: Begin Doctrine and Nuclear Weapon Free Zone This happens to be the case despite the fact that many countries and different members of the UN have always been opposed to the validity and applicability of this foreign doctrine or policy.
• Atomic Bomb as a Necessary Evil to End WWII Maddox argued that by releasing the deadly power of the A-bomb on Japanese soil, the Japanese people, and their leaders could visualize the utter senselessness of the war.
• Nuclear Weapon Associated Dangers and Solutions The launch of a nuclear weapon will not only destroy the infrastructure but also lead to severe casualties that will be greater than those during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks.
• Why the US Decided to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan? One of the most notable stains on America’s reputation, as the ‘beacon of democracy,’ has to do with the fact that the US is the only country in the world that had used the Atomic […]
• The Marshallese and Nuclear Weapon Testing The other effects that the Marshallese people suffered as a result of nuclear weapon testing had to do with the high levels of radiations that were released.
• Was the American Use of the Atomic Bomb Against Japan in 1945 the Final Act of WW2 or the Signal That the Cold War Was About to Begin Therefore, to evaluate the reasons that guided the American government in their successful attempt at mass genocide of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one must consider not only the political implications behind the actions […]
• Leo Szilard’s Petition on the Atomic Bomb The group of scientists who created the weapon of mass destruction tried to prevent the usage of atomic bombs with the help of providing the petition to the President.
• Atomic Audit: Nuclear Posture Review Michael notes that the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, such as nuclear bombs, tends to qualify the infiltration of security threats in the United States and across the world.
• Why the US used the atomic bomb against Japan? There are two main reasons that prompted the United States to use the atomic bomb against Japan; the refusal to surrender by Japan and the need for the US to assert itself.
• The Use of Atomic Bomb in Japan: Causes and Consequences The reason why the United States was compelled to employ the use of a more lethal weapon in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan has been at the heart of many scholarly writings.
• The Tradition of Non Use of Nuclear Weapon It is worth noting that since 1945 the concept of non use of nuclear weapons have occupied the minds of scholars, the general public and have remain the most and single important issues in the […]
• Was it Necessary for the US to Drop the Atomic Bomb? When it comes to discussing whether it was necessary to drop atomic bombs on Japan’s cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, it is important to take into account the specifics of geopolitical […]
• Iran and Nuclear Weapon However, whether world leaders take action or not, Iran is about to get the nukes, and the first target will be Israel followed by American and the rest of the world.
• An Analysis of the United States’ Nuclear Weapon and the Natural Resources Used to Maintain it
• The Rise Of The Nuclear Weapon Into A Political Weapon
• Iran: Nuclear Weapon and United States
• Military And Nuclear Weapon Development During The Cold War
• Nuclear Weapons And Responsibility Of A Nuclear Weapon
• The Trinity Project: Testing The Effects of a Nuclear Weapon
• An Analysis of the First Nuclear Weapon Built in 1945
• The Problem With Nuclear Weapons Essay – Nuclear weapon
• The Soviet Union Tested A Nuclear Weapon
• An Argument in Favor of Nuclear Weapon Abolition
• An Analysis of the Major Problem in Nuclear Weapon in World Today
• WWII and the Lack of Nuclear Weapon Security
• The Controversy Of Indivisible Weapons Composition – Cold War, Nuclear weapon
• The Never Ending Genocide : A Nuclear Weapon, Stirring Debate
• Nuclear Weapon Should Be Destroyed from All Countries
• Atomic Dragon: Chinese Nuclear Weapon Development and the Risk of Nuclear War
• The Nuclear Weapon Of Mass Destruction
• Nuclear Weapon Programmes of India and Pakistan: A Comparative Assessment
• Use of Hydroelectric Dams and the Indian Nuclear Weapon Problem
• Detente: Nuclear Weapon And Cuban Missile Crisis
• The Danger Of Indivisible Weapons – Nuclear weapon, Cool War
• Terrorism: Nuclear Weapon and Pretty High Likelihood
• The United States and Nuclear Weapon
• Nuclear Weapon And Foreign Policy
• The Environmental and Health Issues of Nuclear Weapon in Ex-Soviet Bloc’s Environmental Crisis
• Science: Nuclear Weapon and Supersonic Air Crafts
• Justified Or Unjustified: America Builds The First Nuclear Weapon
• The Controversial Issue of the Justification for the Use of Nuclear Weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to End World War II
• Using Of Nuclear Weapon In Cold War Period
• Nuclear Weapon Funding In US Defense Budget
• Nuclear Weapon: Issues, Threat and Consequence Management
• An Analysis of Advantages and Disadvantage of Nuclear Weapon
• The Repercussion Of The North Korea’s Nuclear Weapon Threat On Globe
• A History of the SALT I and SALT II in Nuclear Weapon Treaties
• Free Hiroshima And Nagasaki: The Development And Usage Of The Nuclear Weapon
• The World ‘s First Nuclear Weapon
• The Effects Of Nuclear Weapon Development On Iran
• What Nuclear Weapons and How It Works?
• Can Nuclear Weapons Destroy the World?
• What Happens if a Nuclear Bomb Goes Off?
• Why Do Countries Have Nuclear Weapons?
• What Food Would Survive a Nuclear War?
• Why North Korea Should Stop It Nuclear Weapons Program?
• How Far Underground Do You Need to Be to Survive a Nuclear War?
• Why Nuclear Weapons Should Be Banned?
• Why Is There Such Focus on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as Opposed to Other Kinds of Weapons?
• How Long Would It Take for Earth to Be Livable After a Nuclear War?
• What Are the Problems With Nuclear Weapons?
• How Have the Threats Posed by Nuclear Weapons Evolved Over Time?
• How Would the World Be Different if Nuclear Weapons Were Small Enough and Easy Enough to Make to Be Sold on the Black Market?
• How Big Is the Probability of Nuclear Weapons During Terrorism?
• Why Are Nuclear Weapons Important?
• Why Have Some Countries Chosen to Pursue Nuclear Weapons While Others Have Not?
• How Far Do You Need to Be From a Nuclear Explosion?
• Do Nuclear Weapons Keep Peace?
• Can a Nuclear Weapon Be Stopped?
• Do Nuclear Weapons Expire?
• What Do Nuclear Weapons Do to Humans?
• What Does the Case of South Africa Tell Us About What Motivates Countries to Develop or Relinquish Nuclear Weapons?
• Should One Person Have the Authority to Launch Nuclear Weapons?
• Does the World Need Nuclear Weapons at All, Even as a Deterrent?
• Will Most Countries Have Nuclear Weapons One Day?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 27). 83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/

"83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 27 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 27 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "83 Nuclear Weapon Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nuclear-weapon-essay-topics/.

• Nuclear Energy Essay Titles
• Atmosphere Questions
• Pollution Essay Ideas
• Hiroshima Topics
• Air Pollution Research Ideas
• Water Pollution Research Topics
• Conflict Research Topics
• North Korea Titles
• Global Issues Essay Topics
• Third World Countries Research Ideas
• US History Topics
• Cold War Topics
• Evacuation Essay Topics
• Hazardous Waste Essay Topics

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

The Atomic Bomb, Essay Example

Pages: 10

Words: 2766

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The debate over the cold war and America’s actions against Japan have been a long-term debate over necessity and extreme. The lives lost were excessive and what was once highly acceptable has grown into a series of studies and justifications. The controversy and alternate reasons have surfaced leading many to wonder if the atomic bomb was used for bigger reasons than ending the war with Japan. Whereas we may never know the true details behind the decision to use the atomic bomb, there are many controversial beliefs as far as its use. The determination to launch such a devastating attack was based on far more than the desire to end the war with Japan, whereas the speculations are numerous, the United States utilized this option to take back the control that Japan had refused them.

During the time of the war, Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not questioned. However, long after the dust had settled, the purpose and necessity has been reviewed and debated for the true need of such extensive force. The atomic bomb resulted in 70,000-80,000 Hiroshima citizens losing their lives.[1] This was not necessarily an instant casualty count, this occurred over days as the radiation set in, many suffered for days before dying. Truman’s decision to launch the bombs was not done carelessly or void of deep consideration. However, there has been a debate for decades as far as the legitimacy or even need for nuclear attacks. Studying the details and determining the premise that the U.S. based their decision on judgment instead of facts creates the need to rethink the nuclear weapons policies.[2] It really does dictate individuals to study the details of the war to determine whether it was the best course of action or whether it was avoidable. At this point in the war, it was believed that taking such force was the best way to force Japan to relinquish their powers that they were misusing.

The bombing of Japan was not based solely on the war, it was an economic consideration as well. Japan refused to back down, fighting the United States demands. There are some who felt that as détente deepened on an economic levelthe Soviet alliance would shift away from planning towards the market, and from a location of isolation into a fully integrated world economy.[3]The concern was that the necessary resources for economic success was been smothered by the Soviet’s involvement. Because the United States wanted to restore stability, it was necessary for them to learn an important historical lesson that only when the United States was resilient could there be world order. [4]On an economic level, the United States had to take back what they classified as theirs in hopes of remaining dominate in economic, political, and social standing worldwide. This was one of the many reasons that the bombing was felt to be necessary. The entire nation was dependent upon the resources that Japan was denying them. Years of fighting a back and forth battle void of bombing would have withheld the necessary resources from Americans for too long.

In a study done on the Cold War and dropping the bomb on Japan, many students were asked their opinion as to whether this action was justified and necessary. They were presented the facts and thenallowed to discuss the details in order to work through some of the controversies that linger around the dropping of the Atomic bomb. One group supported Truman’s decision basing as the probably the most difficult decision that he ever had to make and he did it based solely upon the well-being of his country. He also carried the guilt of the lives lost as a result of this bomb. [5] Another group was not as open to the idea of this action as the first group. They were not certain on their standing of right or wrong because they felt that the facts were not presented correctly and they still held a certain amount of controversy. The details of the war in general were still in question and the casualties for both sides were not laid out. But in the end they majority determined, “The bomb was a good thing because now all the world knows how much desolation and destruction it causes and hopefully we will have enough sense not to drop it ever again.”[6] The decision was supported for the well-being of America and the prevention of future attacks based on the worldwide knowledge of their powers. Meaning that Truman’s decision to utilize the atomic bomb was for the overall well-being of Americans as well as a means to take back the economic power from Japan while ending the cold war.

Many scholars have spent decades studying the events and relevance of the cold war. The division as far as relevance, avoidance, or alternate solutions have created heavy debates. John Lukas determined that “This symbolic event, marks the supreme condition of contemporary history …. That supreme condition is not the Atomic Bomb and not Communism; it is the division of Germany and of most of Europe not American and Russian spheres of influence. The so-called cold war grew out of this division.”[7] There is still a significant amount of evidence missing with both the American and Russian actions, the final judgment of the Cold War origins will remain elusive.[8] However, there are many different publications that have shown that the Soviet’s behavior was the opposition, being both inflexible and an illusion that the Soviet could have been dissolved without the extensive cost of the war. This is clearly speculation because there is no way to know if the other methods or resolution would have been effective or merely prolonged the war unnecessarily.

The cold war was referred to as an overkill. A Washington legislative assistant, Alperovitz, has examined the role of the atomic bomb in the forming America’s position for the Soviet Union. His findings, tentative and equally frightening, is that the United States used the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in order show that their weapon capability to the Russians in order to scare them into disgorging part of their Eastern European conquests.[9] Clearly this adds additional dimensions as to the need for the atomic bomb. The previous approach in history to the Cold War is laid out in a systematic and trivialize manner in order to dictate necessity. However, the event from the Potsdam to the Doctrine of Truman has been extremely underplayed. Textbooks support Truman’s actions to being a great president and handling the crises of NATO, the Marshal Plan, and the Doctrine. The attention rarely has been centered on Truman’ actual participation in these situations.[10]This leads individuals to question if other approaches would have led to an early détente as well.

From the American point of view, the initiation of nuclear weapons gave us an alternative to creating European peace in assistance with the Soviet Union. This also was a ploy to neutralize Germany and any potential Nazi aftermath. Having an atomic monopoly permitted that a small fear of German resurgence and void of concern of the interest of Soviet security.[11]The Soviet foreign policy after the World War II occasionally supported the security of American interest. Therefore it is determined that the monolithic true enemy of the Cold War was largely in the imagination of America’s ardent anticommunist cold fighters.[12] The events even suggest that Stalin was willing to cut a deal during the postwar years. There is not a significant amount of evidence showing how the American-Soviet relations was in terms of cooperation, but there was potential.

Contrary to popular belief, based on the historical presentations, Truman knew that the atomic bomb was no longer needed in order to avoid an invasion. The manuscripts and records presented to scholars over the past few years has led them to a better understanding of the events of the cold war. The overall consensus of the war was that the bomb was not necessary nor needed to avoid Japanese invasion, it is clear that there were alternatives to such drastic measures and Truman knew it.[13]Due to the devastation of the bomb, it raised the question of why it was utilized. The end result of analyzing the 1945 attack, it is questioned how American leaders could willingly kill over 100,000 innocent Japanese people if it was avoidable. The American leaders of this time have opened the doors for their values and scruples to be questioned. [14] The evolution of attitude and America in general are under attack as a result.  However this attack is not valid or necessary. The act of bombing Japan took back all necessary controls in Japan and outside of Japan, ensuring America’s safety and economic security. If this action did not occur, it is highly unlikely that the same favorable outcomes would have occurred.

Beyond Truman, the question of the Henry L. Stimson, secretary of war, had his motives in the line of fire as well. He was a deeply religious man with strong moral convictions, who grieved the passing the comforting traditions of the nineteenth century.[15] He is referred to, at best, as being confused morally, and at worst a hypocrite. The Japanese concessions were not significant enough and Stimson stated: The whole situation is beginning to shake me up and get me back to a little bit nearer my old view that we haven’t yet reached the stage where we can dispense with police force; and the only police force I have got to depend on today is the American Navy. Pretty soon I am going to tell the President to so.[16] It believed that his moral stand was bypassed in order to support the attack on Japan. Knowing the casualties and ultimate demise, he supported and encouraged the process, despite the visible surfacing alternative routes.

Barton argued that the former governmental officials willing and knowingly constructed the history of the atomic bomb. He found that James B Co-nant, in effort to chase off the growing criticism encouraged the secretary of state, Henry l. Stimson to create an article to justify and explain the bomb.[17]In this publication he defended the actions by saying that it saved millions of American’s lives. Truman utilized his publication by proceeding to add validity to it by saying the bomb had saved a half a million lives of Americans. This presentation of lives saved, increased the support of Truman actions and influenced the memories that individual’s had for his decision to proceed with the bombings.[18] This laid to rest the initial speculations and allowed Americans to believe their claims for a while. The best interest of America was carried out by utilizing the power encompassed in that bomb. Regardless of the true purpose behind the bombing, it still provided the safety that we know today. It was not an easy decision, and it was not done in vain.

When asking a collection of journalist the top one-hundred stories of the twentieth century, the 1945 atomic bombing of Japan was the top.[19] This is based on the controversy that has been raised over the past decades from scholars who have delved deeper into the details of the bombing. The acrimony and polarization over Truman’s choice to drop the bomb disrupted the efforts to determine the weaknesses and strengths of the competing positions and to elevate to a defensible middle ground.[20] With the debate over the atomic bomb and the new surfacing documentations, there are very strong arguments on both sides of the spectrum that provides strong evidence that there is more to the bombing than saving the American lives as originally believed. This allows individuals to question the motives behind the decision, but not the true reason. There is no question that the actions of Truman were in the best interest of Americans, past and present.

The determination to launch such a devastating attack was based on far more than the desire to end the war with Japan, whereas the speculations are numerous, the United States utilized this option to take back the control that Japan had refused them. Perhaps we may never know the true details behind this attack, it is important to realize that there are alternative beliefs based on the scholarly findings. The loss of life was excessive and it is hard to imagine that was in vain. However, for history sake it is a significant turning point for the stability and strength of America. Unleashing the potential power left America a country not to be messed with and allowed them to take the opportunity to establish themselves economically. Regardless of the side one takes on the atomic bomb, it was a significant factor for America being where it is today. Had the bomb not been utilized, it is inevitable that America would have been challenged at some point, and as Truman believed, the millions of lives could have been lost.

Bibliography

Alperovitz, Gar; Robert L. Messer; & Barton J. Bernstien. Marshall, Truman, and the Decision to Drop the Bomb. International Security, Vol. 16 Number 3 (1992) pp. 204-221.

Barton J Bernstein, Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed          Opportunities, Little- Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory. Diplomatic History (1995) 19 (2): 227-273

Bonnett, John. Jekyll and Hyde:Henry L. Stimson, Mentalite and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb on Japan . War in History (1997) 4: 174.

Cox, Michael. From the Truman Doctrine to the Second Superpower Détente: The Rise and Fall of the Cold War . Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27, No.1 (1990) p. 25-41.

Doppen, Frans H. Teaching and Learning Multiple Perspectives: The Atomic Bomb . The Social Studies: ProQuest Central. (2000) p.159-168.

Graebner, Norman A. Cold War Origins and the Continuing Debate: A Review of Recent Literature. Journal of Conflict Resolution. (1969) 12: 123.

Miles, Rufus E. Jr. Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved.  International Security Vol. 10 Number 2, (1985) pp. 121-140.

Nuclear Weapons . ProQuest Central. (1994) pp.2-10.

Smalls, Melvin. Discussion and Reviews: Reexamining the Classic Cold War: A Review. Journal of Conflict Resolution. (1966) 10:516.

Walker, Samuel J. Historiographical Essay: Recent Literature on Truman’s Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground . Diplomatic History (2005) 29 (2): 311-334

[1]Miles, Rufus E. Jr. Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved. International Security Vol. 10 Number 2, (1985) pp. 121-140.

[2]Miles, Rufus E. Jr. Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved. International Security Vol. 10 Number 2, (1985) pp. 121-140.

[3]Cox, Michael. From the Truman Doctrine to the Second Superpower Détente: The Rise and Fall of the Cold War . Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27, No.1 (1990) p. 25-41.

[4]Cox, Michael. From the Truman Doctrine to the Second Superpower Détente: The Rise and Fall of the Cold War . Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27, No.1 (1990) p. 25-41.

[5]Doppen, Frans H. Teaching and Learning Multiple Perspectives: The Atomic Bomb . The Social Studies: ProQuest Central. (2000) p.159-168.

[6]Doppen, Frans H. Teaching and Learning Multiple Perspectives: The Atomic Bomb . The Social Studies: ProQuest Central. (2000) p.159-168.

[7]Graebner, Norman A. Cold War Origins and the Continuing Debate: A Review of Recent  Literature. Journal of Conflict Resolution. (1969) 12: 123.

[8]Graebner, Norman A. Cold War Origins and the Continuing Debate: A Review of Recent  Literature. Journal of Conflict Resolution. (1969) 12: 123.

[9]Alperovitz, Gar; Robert L. Messer; & Barton J. Bernstien. Marshall, Truman, and the Decision to Drop the Bomb. International Security, Vol. 16 Number 3 (1992) pp. 204-221.

[10]Smalls, Melvin. Discussion and Reviews: Reexamining the Classic Cold War: A Review. Journal  of Conflict Resolution. (1966) 10:516

[11] Nuclear Weapons . ProQuest Central. (1994) pp.2-10.

[12] Nuclear Weapons . ProQuest Central. (1994) pp.2-10.

[13]Alperovitz, Gar; Robert L. Messer; & Barton J. Bernstien. Marshall, Truman, and the Decision to Drop the Bomb. International Security, Vol. 16 Number 3 (1992) pp. 204-221.

[14]Alperovitz, Gar; Robert L. Messer; & Barton J. Bernstien. Marshall, Truman, and the Decision to Drop the Bomb. International Security, Vol. 16 Number 3 (1992) pp. 204-221.

[15]Bonnett, John. Jekyll and Hyde: Henry L. Stimson, Mentalite and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb on Japan . War in History (1997) 4: 174.

[16]Bonnett, John. Jekyll and Hyde: Henry L. Stimson, Mentalite and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb on Japan . War in History (1997) 4: 174.

[17]Barton J Bernstein, Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little- Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory, Diplomatic History (1995) 19 (2): 227-273.

[18]Barton J Bernstein, Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little- Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory, Diplomatic History (1995) 19 (2): 227-273.

[19]Walker, Samuel J. Historiographical Essay: Recent Literature on Truman’s Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground . Diplomatic History (2005) 29 (2): 311-334

[20]Walker, Samuel J. Historiographical Essay: Recent Literature on Truman’s Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground . Diplomatic History (2005) 29 (2): 311-334

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Conformity and Deviation, Essay Example

The Sounds of Silence, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

• Knowledge Base
• General Essays

The Atomic Bomb Essay

• Author Kimberly Ball
• Category General Essays

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

The atomic bomb was the only nuclear weapon used for war. It has only ever been used twice in warfare, and has not been used since. The invention of the atomic bomb caused catastrophic events and wiped out tens of thousands of people. But who decided this was necessary and why?

The invention of the atomic bomb is said to have started in Berlin, one year before World War II commenced. A group of chemists or physicists, Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, and Fritz Strassman discovered nuclear fission, this is said to be the dawn of a new era: the atomic age. The main Allied and Axis countries raced to begin the development of new and superior weapons.

The Manhattan Project was launched soon after the discovery of nuclear fission. It was authorised by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the American president at the time, his main objective was to end the war in the pacific, that being between the United States and Japan. Most of the developmental and experimental work was performed by J. Robert Openheimer, a theoretical physicist and one of the major contributors to the invention of the atomic bomb. The Government managed to persuade Albert Einstein to help them create the bomb, he was very concerned that Germany may develop the nuclear technology first and feared the potential outcome. Even though Einstein helped the government create and develop nuclear technology he regretted doing so after the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.

There were risks taken with the development of the atomic bomb. After Japan bombings, countries were racing to get their hands on the new nuclear technology in order to arm themselves and improve their military weapons.

Espionage was a very big issue at the time, especially in the Soviet Union. The Russians were using spies in the United States to get blueprints for the atomic bomb in order to improve on their weaponry.

When two bombs were dropped in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the two major cities of Japan were severely affected. At the hypocentre, the area in which the bomb dropped directly, people and buildings were immediately disintegrated. Around 60 000- 80 000 people died immediately due to the distance from the atomic bomb, and more than 200 000 people died soon after because of effects of the bomb, such as cancer and radiation poisoning. The dropping of the atomic bomb also caused anarchy in Japan, because civilians were so frightened that an additional bombing would occur. The United States were very much aware of these risks because they had deployed an atomic bomb prior to the Japan bombings and were able to see how extreme the bomb was. They could tell by research that the bomb gave off tremendous amounts of radiation and could cause much harm to people.

The President of the United States at the time of the bombings was President Harry S. Truman, who made the official decision of the deployment of the atomic bombs. President Truman’s main objective was to end the war with the least amount of deaths. He believed that the only option that would result in the least amount of deaths was to bomb a populated area in Japan. Truman weighed in the odds and noted that a conventional air raid would result in approximately 5 times the amount of deaths than the atomic bomb did, and a normal ground invasion would cause the death of many soldiers in combat.

To deploy the atomic bomb in an unpopulated area as a demonstration of the United State’s power and to threaten Japan, was not a reliable strategy because Japan could have taken a considerate amount of time to decide whether or not to end the war, this was an issue for the U.S. because they were eager to end the war as soon as possible. Another problem was that they were not certain that the bomb would actually perform as required, from this they were worried that it would cause Japan to fight back even more than before, because they would know about a potential catastrophic weapon that would harm Japan.

From these problems Truman decided it best to bomb a populated area of Japan, but more importantly a city that was the centre of military development. This was important because the United States wanted to destroy Japan’s ability to continue the war.

After the events of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima, President Truman refused to deploy anymore atomic bombs, and would only do so is absolutely necessary. He said in his response to a letter from a senator, “But I can’t bring myself to believe that because they are beasts, we should ourselves act in the same manner,” in reference to the Japanese.

To conclude , the atomic bomb was a disastrous invention and caused many people to die. After these events occurred, came the dawn for the atomic age, that such as the Cold War. The United States saw this as their only way out of the war between them and Japan, and decided to take action before things would take a turn for the worst.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas ,  concepts ,  tutorials,   essay papers  – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Rube Goldberg’s Greatest Machine Is His Legacy

Decades after Mr. Goldberg, a cartoonist, died, artists and engineers have found creative inspiration in his outlandish inventions.

By Sam Corbin

What’s the simplest way to open a can? Faced with this question, most would suggest a can opener. The artist Rube Goldberg, however, believed the task could be better accomplished using a golf club, waltzing mice and a disgruntled pet dragon whose fire-breathing would light a welding torch positioned in front of the closed can. Simple.

This approach to everyday tasks was summarized in the introduction to “The Art of Rube Goldberg,” a collection of Mr. Goldberg’s work that was published in 2013. “These are things that need doing,” the introduction, written by Adam Gopnik, reads, “but they don’t need this much doing.”

Mr. Goldberg was half-kidding with such inventions, or “satirical representations of progressive nothing,” as he once called them. Even so, it is uncanny to observe how his legacy seems to function like one of them, setting off precisely engineered chaos in every direction.

This month, young engineers from around the country gathered at Purdue University in Indiana for the Rube Goldberg Machine Contest and demonstrated contraptions that could put toothpaste on a toothbrush; notable efforts featured evil wizards, volcanoes, miniature Jeeps and a clever “Rubenheimer” assembly, inspired by last year’s “ Barbenheimer ” phenomenon. In Norway, a performance artist was busy crafting another Rubelike contraption to break dry pasta over his head for his TikTok following. And every few years, the inventor’s influence shines through in a board game, or a music video . Rube has, in effect, become a rubric.

In an essay for Popular Science in 1923 titled “Why I Am an Inventor (Do I Hear a Laugh?),” Mr. Goldberg expressed a belief that his drawings, fantastic as they might seem, could inspire something of real use. “Perhaps I may yet come across my big idea in working out some of my foolish cartoons,” Mr. Goldberg wrote. “The field is wide and strange things happen.”

One could hardly mistake a drawing of a Rube Goldberg machine for the blueprints of a self-serious inventor, as each was attributed to a fictional Professor Butts. Whenever Mr. Goldberg played on untraditional uses for household objects, he anthropomorphized them and consigned them in pairs to “Boob McNutt’s Ark.” And lest readers begin to take these pokes at the industrial age too much to heart, the cartoonist created a meta-forum to answer for his drawings, in a comic strip called “Foolish Questions.”

Zach Umperovitch, who is the national contest director for the Rube Goldberg Institute, which organizes the event at Purdue, described this tongue-in-cheek attitude as essential to distinguishing a Rube Goldberg machine from simpler chain reactions such as domino topples.

“What really makes something a Rube Goldberg, what sets it apart and above, is that humor or that ridiculous nature,” said Mr. Umperovitch, who also hosts “Contraption Masters,” a series on the Discovery Channel.

Mr. Umperovitch himself had for a long time held the Guinness World Record for the largest Rube Goldberg machine — using 300 steps to inflate and pop a balloon — and regularly used a Goldberg contraption to hand out his business cards. “It’s six simple machines, all to open a box, which then spits out my card.”

There is a timeless appeal to this mechanized subversion of expectations. It will always be funny to see a complex machine whiz and whir just to accomplish what is essentially a wry wink about having wasted your time. But artists have found ways to capitalize on this exercise in futility, using Mr. Goldberg’s machines as creative fodder for meaningful explorations of their crafts.

Andy Biskin, a New York-based clarinetist and composer who created an evening of jazz set to animated illustrations of Rube Goldberg — called “Goldberg’s Variations,” in a nod to Johann Sebastian Bach — saw a meaningful parallel between music and machine.

“A piece of composition is an invention for sure,” Mr. Biskin said. “It is a machine.”

Mr. Biskin noted that he found it challenging at times to stretch his compositions to match the Goldberg inventions’ circuitous accomplishment of their designated tasks. But, in reflecting on how “music is just a way of filling up time sometimes,” he said he also discovered a new compositional process: He composed “Interludes,” a set of shorter conceptual pieces inspired by wheels, clocks and other ephemera from the Goldberg cartoons.

“The physical cartoons are just like training wheels,” Mr. Biskin said. “And then you can write machines without the machines.”

Students competing in the machine contest, which scores contraptions based on creativity, complexity and the completion of the designated task, seemed instead to benefit from an inverse correlation with the inanity of their creations. In email interviews, they wrote about having developed lasting skills and passions that far outshone the brief excitement of watching their inventions run.

Tim Giannini, a senior at Purdue whose team’s machine won in the college category, said that he loved spending hours “messing with little mechanisms and random objects” in the hopes of finding “a unique combination that no one else has thought of before.”

He and his cohort were certainly successful in that respect: Their machine’s toothbrush was styled as an evil wizard, perched at the top of a tower, who triggered a small missile that eventually knocked him into the path of a volcano. The tower’s fall triggered a weight, which released a compressed-air piston that dumped a flask of hydrogen peroxide into a mixture of water, yeast, dish soap and dye to create colorful elephant toothpaste . This mixture foamed and overflowed from the volcano onto the toothbrush wizard, completing the task.

Having grown up playing with engineering-focused toys such as Lego and K’nex, Mr. Giannini found that “this club and what we do sparked that same spark that I found playing with those toys as a child.”

“It’s more than just agreeing with someone to avoid arguing,” said Sophia Arleo Thompson, a sophomore at Ethical Culture Fieldston School in New York and co-captain of the “Rubenheimer” team, which won the People’s Choice Award. “It’s confronting each other and having meaningful conversations about how we can combine ideas to create the best solution possible.”

Ms. Thompson hopes to pursue mechanical engineering on a pre-med track in college. Beyond the more profound outcomes of her team’s collaboration, she said, the Rube Goldberg club at her school was just plain fun. “I get to use power tools and hot glue for hours on end every weekend.”

In revisiting the cartoons of Mr. Goldberg that inspired the competition, it becomes difficult to ignore the wartime context that looms over them. Indeed, although Mr. Goldberg, who died in 1970, has become synonymous with mechanized tomfoolery, the cartoon that eventually earned him a Pulitzer Prize was pure political commentary. He won in 1948 for a single panel titled “Peace Today,” which featured a family perched on the top of an atomic bomb teetering perilously at the edge of a cliff labeled “World destruction.”

If Mr. Goldberg’s original drawings served as satire for a heavily industrialized society, their contemporary analogues nearly a century later might be seen as responses to the detritus of that society, which suffered the economic and social effects of emphasizing efficiency above the human spirit. Jan Hakon Erichsen, a performance artist based in Norway whose destructive chain-reaction contraptions receive millions of views on social media , has even begun to see himself as part of the joke.

Mr. Erichsen’s performances often feature the deft use of his body in the accomplishment of utterly nonsensical tasks: He engineers a suspended hacksaw to slice dried spaghetti off his head; swings his knife-covered legs over a row of balloons to pop them; creates a life vest out of loaves of bread, then jumps into a freezing lake. These exercises may lack in complexity, but they nevertheless transfix the audiences who follow them to their predictable conclusions (the bread-loaf life vest, for instance, was immediately waterlogged).

The completion of these absurd tasks was hardly the point for Mr. Erichsen; nor did he hope to protest the dangers of an overcomplicated future. His Goldbergian ambition was rather to encourage audiences to find new ways of seeing inventions already in existence.

“You have all these mundane objects around you which you don’t really even think about anymore,” he said. “Because you’ve seen them so many times that you kind of go blind.”

Sam Corbin writes about language, wordplay and the daily crossword for The Times. More about Sam Corbin

It’s Game Time!

Take your puzzling skills in new directions..

WordleBot , our daily Wordle companion that tells you how skillful or lucky you are, is getting an upgrade. Here’s what to know .

The editor of Connections , our new game about finding common threads between words, talks about how she makes this daily puzzle feel fun .

We asked some of the best Sudoku  solvers in the world for their tips and tricks. Try them to  tackle even the most challenging puzzles.

Read today’s Wordle Review , and get insights on the game from our columnists.

We asked Times readers how they play Spelling Bee. The hive mind weighed in with their favorite tips and tricks .

Ready to play? Try Wordle , Spelling Bee  or The Crossword .

Home — Essay Samples — War — Atomic Bomb — Pondering the Atomic Bomb: Past and Present Influences

Pondering The Atomic Bomb: Past and Present Influences

• Categories: Atomic Bomb

About this sample

Words: 663 |

Published: Feb 22, 2024

Words: 663 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, immediate and lasting global impacts, ethics and humanitarian concerns, the impact of the atomic bomb on the world in 2023-2024, the impact of the atomic bomb on the survivors and their descendants, the ethical implications of the atomic bomb in 2023-2024, the ethical implications of using the atomic bomb against japan.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: War

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 757 words

1 pages / 546 words

8 pages / 3627 words

3 pages / 1234 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Atomic Bomb

The essay delves into the significant impact of the atomic bomb on global politics and warfare, particularly as a catalyst for the Cold War. It explores how the bomb fueled the nuclear arms race, influenced diplomatic [...]

The mushroom clouds that rose over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 cast a long and enduring shadow over human society, forever altering the collective perception of security and ushering in an era of unprecedented existential [...]

The detonation of atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 left an indelible mark on human history. Beyond the immediate devastation and loss of life, these nuclear weapons had lasting environmental and anthropocentric [...]

The advent of the atomic bomb in 1945 marked a watershed moment in human history, ushering in an era of unprecedented destructive power and fundamentally altering the dynamics of warfare. The sheer destructive force of these [...]

In the 1940’s, the world was at war between Germany, Italy, Japan and the Allies. This whole war could have been very catastrophic. Nazi Germany was planning on taking over the world. During the war, a brave and smart group of [...]

In recent years, a wide array of new technologies have entered the modern battlefield, giving rise to new means and methods of warfare, such as cyber-attacks, armed drones, and robots, including autonomous weapons. While there [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free