{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Foreign policy 99 1515 retrieved from

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: the context in which decisions had to be made… [He] contends that military considerations were not truly a factor in why the atom bombs were used” (Giangreco164 ­165). This lack of scope in the opposing argument destroys the credibility of those opposing the use of the atomic bombs. The assertion that President Truman was justified in his decision to use atomic bombs remains solid, given a holistic view of all the factors that contributed to his decision. The main point asserted by the counterargument was that military factors held no sway over whether the atomic bombs were dropped and that the sole reason for doing so was to intimidate Russia and Joseph Stalin (Giangreco 164). While the latter point has been proven to be true, the assertion that military factors held no sway is entirely false. The arguments to support these claims have been discredited due to a lack of scope and disdain towards contradictory evidence. Overall, the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were proven justified for two main reasons. This decision ended the Pacific War quickly and decisively. If an invasion of the Japanese mainland had occurred, the number of both Allied and Japanese casualties would have grossly outnumbered those killed by the bombs. Not only did the use of the bombs save lives at the end of World War II, but also prevented future loss of life between the United States and the Soviet Union by creating the concept of nuclear deterrence. By using the atomic bomb on Japan, the United States set the stage for the Cold War, which has kept peace between Great Powers since 1945. If this had not occur...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online