Shivam Patel

AP U.S History

January 3, 2011

B. During World War II more than 40 million people were killed, less than 200,000 of them by

the two atomic bombs. Yet, the use of the bomb has become one of the most controversial

issues of all time. Do you believe the method of killing people matters and is the atomic

bomb a type of weapon that should never be used? Explain your reasoning .

The Second World War was, as its name indicates, a global, armed conflict that lasted

from 1939 to 1945. The two sides of the war included the Axis Powers, and the Allies. The Axis

powers mainly included Germany, Italy, and Japan . These countries became allies after signing

the Tripartite Pact. The Allies consisted mainly of the U.S, Britain, and the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics (these three countries were known as “The Big Three”) . World War II was

very deadly, resulting in more than 40 million deaths. This war caused great controversy in

issues that dealt with specific method of killing people. One great controversy includes

“Whether or not the use of the atomic bomb was justified”.

I believe the method of killing matters to some extent, but if things get out of hand, a

point has to be made, by whatever means necessary. I think the method of killing does matter if

the cause for the killing is unnecessary. Why should people be tortured for something they
don’t even deserve? One great example of this deals with the holocaust . Millions of innocent

people died during the holocaust. Not only was this genocide completely wrong, but the

methods used in killing these people was cruel. When presented with situations like these, the

method of killing people definitely matters.

Sometimes, we are presented with situations, where the method of killing people does

not matter. These situations usually appear when the enemy is so desperate to win, and has so

much pride, that they’d rather not surrender. These situations call for unfortunate, but in my

opinion, needed means of warfare. Japan obviously wouldn’t surrender and tried to hold up as

much as they could; they probably thought they would get better negotiations if they didn’t

give up. To do this, Japan literally lost any regard for the citizens of their country, and tried to

make them “a part of the war”. They were prepared to do anything they would have to do in

order to turn their island into some kind of fortress. They were prepared to send very young

people into the military and National Guard. This philosophy of warfare strikes most of us

westerners as obscene; however to the Japanese it was honor . The Japanese didn’t believe in

surrender, they followed a code that made each soldier fight to the death, and fight while

expecting death. This attitude can be traced back into Japan’s old culture. During that time,

there was a warrior class called the Samurai, they lived by a code called “Bushido” which

basically means to honor the emperor at all costs, and to fight to the death . This attitude,

combined with the hopes of better negotiations motivated the Japanese to continue to fight .
However, when new technologies produced the atomic bomb, the Japanese’s old traditions

were pushed aside, but not truly forgotten.

After witnessing the devastating effect of the bomb, they were forced to give in . This

episode called for the using of the bomb, and this cruel, but needed method of killing . This

method was needed since it exemplified to the Japanese that they would have to surrender .

That is important because it helps end the war. Also, the numbers indicate, in the Pacific

Theater, that about 106,000 American soldiers were killed, and about 248,000 were wounded

and missing, and about 1.5 million Japanese were killed out of the 9 million they had. So if we

were to invade Japan, many more American and Japanese soldiers would die . The bomb only

had to kill about 200,000 for the war to stop. Also it was inevitable for Hiroshima and Nagasaki

to not be attacked since they were very industrial, contained the Armies Headquarters .

Nagasaki was also important due to its role in being Southern Japan’s largest sea port . One

arguing against the using of the bomb, in my opinion, would be very foolish. If the bomb was

not used, and many American soldiers died fighting to get Japan to surrender, the American

people would surely be mad. Would not you be mad if your relative died fighting for the war,

when there was a new weapon that could have done the task and saved many lives? Also if the

invasions on these cities were going to happen unconditionally, we might as well, for the sake

of convenience, and for the sake of saving lives, use the bombs. This reason, in my opinion,

justifies the using of the bombs. There were also other reasons that one, especially one living
by the Pacific Coast, can argue. One of these reasons includes the uncalled for attack on Pearl

Harbor. If Japan can attack us in a devastating manner, why can’t we?

As you can clearly see, President Truman’s decision was a controversial one,

nonetheless, a wise one. He was forced to use these methods of killing since they definitely

prove to be more “right” on the greater scale. Everything supports the using of the bombs; we

save lives, save time, and end the war. The Atomic bomb should definitely be considered an

option during war especially if the situation calls for it. And for such reasons, I would rather be

presented with the case of moaning "moralists" after the job has been done, rather than hear

the cries of the unborn American babies mourning hopelessly for their fallen fathers .