Analyzing the Controversial Use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan

Abstract

Dropping the Bomb The president's advisors had developed proposals within the American government concerning Japanese status. The recommendations recommended would make it easier for Japanese leaders to end the war. The suggestions were to drop a blunt demand for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese leaders. The advice offered was that more detailed conditions were to be provided in that the Japanese armed forces surrender unconditionally, and all war potential be destroyed (Corbett et al., 2017). Further, a democratic national polity with the emperor as the head of state is retained. There were several options that President Truman could have used in combating Japan. First, there was the possibility of the continuation of the conventional bombing of the Japanese cities. At the same time, Truman had the capacity and capability of directly invading Japan. Another method that could have been used in place of the atomic bombs was to demonstrate what the bomb was capable of in an unpopulated island or, lastly, drop the bomb on a city in Japan with no occupants. The damage could have compromised the Japanese leaders to surrender (Dodge, 2017). The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima could be termed as justified at that time as moral since it aimed to prevent more Americans' deaths (Corbett et al., 2017). America took advantage of the impact of the first bomb and was eager to find out if the second bomb at Nagasaki worked the same way as the first, justifies it but considering the damage done, both bombs were unnecessary. On the other hand, there was the option of bloody invasion and round the clock conventional bombing, and it is argued that it would have led to more deaths (Dodge, 2017). It was clear that the bombs' effects were, and it...