The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki

There were many short term effects of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and the one that was dropped on Nagasaki. The name of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was called “Little Boy” and the one that was dropped on Nagasaki was called “Fat Man”.If you didn’t know  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two cities located in Japan in 1945 and are still currently on the map today in Japan. The short term effects of these bombs were a death toll of around 140,000 in Hiroshima and 75,000 they also suffered from severe burns and grievous wounds on the body. Also keep in mind that the death toll is very likely an over conservative estimate of the real destruction of this bomb. To further ingrain this in your mind in the text “The Decision to Use the Bomb” it states,”It was reported the next day to the Japanese Army General Staff that ‘the whole city of Hiroshima was destroyed instantly by a single bomb.’ “. 

At the beginning of the drop of the atomic bomb the long term effects were not well known and what would happen over the long term was very bleak. But thankfully they found that only 1 percent of survivors of these bombs caught an illness caused by the radiation of the atom bomb. This is a very good estimate compared to the estimates of scientists who thought that it was going to be a lot worse. Though there were no long term effects from the radiation there were social and psychological effects brought on by the bomb. These effects ranged from discrimination because other people thought they were contagious with their radiation poisoning to many issues such as increased anxiety and a host of other mental health issues due to the impact of the bomb on them their family and everything around them. To prove this in the text “The Bombing of Hiroshima” it states,”Fortunately, there have not been nearly as many long-term consequences from radiation as people expected. Scientists conducted studies over the next several decades and found no notable difference between birth defects in Hiroshima and in other parts of Japan. The larger problem has been psychological effects; survivors had more symptoms of anxiety and other psychological problems even 20 years after the bombings occurred.”

In my opinion I cannot defend or critique America's usage of the atomic bomb as I am not a genie and I am unable to look into the past and tell what different outcome would have happened had they not dropped the bomb. What I can do is tell you some main sticking points people have used to defend or critique the bombs usage and let you come to your own conclusion on whether it was a morally and logically sound decision. Now let me show you an anecdote from the text ‘ "I had entered a living hell on Earth," a Hiroshima survivor remembers’ which could be used to critique the use of the atomic bomb by showing you a real viewpoint from a real person who was affected by the bomb and possibly nudging you to a conclusion that this was not a morally sound decision. In the anecdote it states,”Tsuboi remembers hearing a loud bang, then being blown into the air and landing 10 yards away. He regained consciousness to find he had been burned over most of his body, his shirtsleeves and pant legs ripped off by the force of the blast. “My arms were badly burned and there seemed to be something dripping from my fingertips,” Tsuboi said. “My back was incredibly painful, but I had no idea what had just happened. I had no idea it was a nuclear bomb and that I’d been exposed to radiation. There was so much smoke in the air that you could barely see 100 meters ahead, but what I did see convinced me that I had entered a living hell on earth.“There were people calling after members of their family. I saw a schoolgirl with her eye hanging out of its socket. People looked like ghosts, bleeding and trying to walk before collapsing. “There were charred bodies everywhere, including in the river. I looked down and saw a man clutching a hole in his stomach, trying to stop his organs from spilling out.” Now a viewpoint that could be used to defend the atomic bomb was that 40,000 US soldiers had already come to their deaths by 1945 in the battle against Japan and the Japanese showed no signs of surrender even after even more casualties on their side and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This is what the U.S used to justify their attack on Japan by saying if they did not take this course of action an invasion on Japanese soil would have led to more deaths than the dropping of the atomic bomb. A common counterargument to this would be that,”Japanese offensive capabilities were exhausted. The navy and air force were almost totally destroyed by the summer of 1945, and the Japanese islands were completely cut off from the rest of the world. The Russian attack of August 8 on Manchuria met little or no resistance.”as stated in the text “The Decision to Drop the Bomb”. Now there’s obviously more at play than this as historians would have already come up with a definitive and agreed upon conclusion to the statement whether it was necessary or not. But from my opinion even though I cannot tell you definitively I say that it was more than necessary as I can infer that even though their offensive capabilities were weak that still would have not prevented many more casualties than the bombings but it would have only won them the war. I may be wrong but this is my conclusion now what is yours?