Essay Sample on Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb

To President Harry S. Truman and Fellow Interment Committee Members -

It is out of respect to the United States and her citizens, and as extension the world, that we must not use the atomic bomb whether it be in a demonstration or as a final decision.

There is no longer a need for the United States to use the atomic bomb against Japan.  The first and main reason for the creation of the bomb was to use against Nazi forces, but with Adolf Hiterl’s death and the sound defeat of Nazi Germany, there is no longer a need for the existence of these weapons.  Japan, without its allies in Europe, is but a small island nation on its way to defeat. All alone, Japan would have to fight a war against both the United States and the United Kingdom - a feat that even they are aware is not possible. Furthermore, it cannot be ignored that the Russians - specifically Stalin - would have no qualms to also declare war on Japan despite their non-aggression pact.  With Russian forces so close to Japanese-occupied Manchuria and Korea, there is no doubt in mind that they would not hesitate to attack if they decided to do so.  Not to mention, American military continues to slowly gain control of the Pacific Islands, continuing to march slowly to the island nation. Thus, Japan is surrounded on nearly all sides by its enemies;  their offensive maneuver is as good as gone.

From the report by physicist James Franck and his colleagues, the “atomic bombs can be detonated with an effect equal to that of 20,000 tons of TNT. One of these bombs could then destroy something like 3 square miles of an urban area. Atomic bombs containing a larger quantity of active material but still weighing less than one ton may be expected to be available within ten years which could destroy over ten square miles of a city.” Even in 1939, the degree of power that a uranium bomb holds was known to be immense.  In a letter from Albert Einstein to former President Roosevelt on the uranium bomb: “A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory.” The sheer magnitude of destruction is astronomical. While the infamy of what happened on December 7, 1941 can never be forgiven or even rectified, we must not be blinded by sole rage and revenge.  Even in war, in its most harshest conditions, we as a nation built upon freedom and goodness must not lose our morality. If the bomb were to be used, hundreds of thousands of civilians with no democratic rights to oppose their militarist government, including women and children, would be killed. Entire families, whole neighborhoods would be wiped out.  And those who won’t be wiped out by the blast, may suffer the consequences of radioactive poisoning released by the uranium in the air, which is something that can never be remedied. If statistics and hatred of the war cannot be swayed or looked past, then at the very least, think of America’s moral standing upon this act.

Now what of our international allies, those we have also fought alongside for years; particularly Great Britain? What changes would occur to international opinions and politics once they have realized the magnitude of the atomic bomb as well the United States’s usage of it against a slowly weakened Japan? We have kept the Manhattan Project a secret, even to you, sir, who have just recently discovered it.  And while you have taken the news of such a project with a degree of grace, can we say the same with Great Britain, whom we have also interchanged information with regarding the creation of nuclear weapons? There is also the Quebec Agreement to be considered, which was agreed upon and signed by Prime Minister Winston Churchhill and former President Roosevelt in June 1944.  One of the clauses of this agreement was that there be mutual consent before the nuclear weapons could be used. In order to fulfill this one agreement as to not cause tensions within our alliance, the United States must notify Great Britain of the Manhattan Project as well as the uranium bombs, both of which we have kept secret since 1939. How would foreign perception of the United States be viewed after this, and can we even say that this new view would be beneficial to us as a nation? Relations with Russia are on unsteady terms, and not to mention allied countries that bear mistrust of our ways and intentions, as well as neutral countries may be deeply shocked by this step. From the words of the report made by James Franck and colleagues:  “It may be very difficult to persuade the world that a nation which was capable of secretly preparing and suddenly releasing a new weapon, as indiscriminately as the rocket bomb and a thousand times more destructive, is to be trusted in its proclaimed desire of having such weapons abolished by international agreement.” An early unannounced view of the uranium bombs may cause other nations to see us as a burgeoning form of Germany, reminiscent of Hitler’s surprise takeover of Poland.

Other alternatives to end this war are possible: offer Japan conditional surrender by softening the surrendering terms and/or wait for the Russians to take control of Japanese-occupied Manchuria and Korea in the hope that Japan will realize that it is futile to keep fighting.  In the case of an official and conditional surrender by Japan, that in the Potsdam Declaration by President Truman, Prime Minister Churchill, and Chiang-Sek, it demanded unconditional surrender but was ambiguous on the matter of its leader, ie the Emperor.  We can clarify this declaration by allowing the Japanese to keep their Emperor.  It is understood that if the United States were to harm the emperor, whom the Japanese revered as a god, the Japanese would resist forever. If the United States were to allow the Japanese to keep their Emperor and notify them of such, there is a chance that the Japanese will listen and thus willingly surrender without conflict.  As for the Russians, make no mistakes that the United States should not fully trust Russia. However, an exception can be made in a case like this. As stated before, it cannot be ignored that the Russians - specifically Stalin - would have no qualms to declare war on Japan despite their non-aggression pact.  With Russian forces so close to Japanese-occupied Manchuria and Korea, there is no doubt in mind that they would not hesitate to attack if they decided to do so.  The Japanese Imperial Army has cannot solely withstand fighting the Russian Red Army, at least not long enough to win.

With all of this in mind, I ask that my fellow committee members as well as the president of the United States please discard the notion of using these weapons of mass destruction.