Controversy Of The Bomb

2 Pages 564 Words

Controversy of the Bomb

Criticism and praise have always followed the debate over the United States government’s decision to use atomic force in World War II. Depending on who is surveyed, one can get a variety of opinions. But the nature of the controversy, according to Ambrose and Brinkley, seems to be whether this atomic force was necessary to resolve World War II in the Pacific theater. In addition, the targets for the bomb were not even military targets, so the bomb would not have any effect on the military situation. If atomic force was necessary, why was the bomb dropped in such haste? Why hadn’t Truman waited to see how the Japanese government responded to the Russian declaration of war?
Ambrose and Brinkley suggest several reasons, other than immediate military necessity, for using the bomb. Most of the high level officials that knew about the Manhattan project, including President Harry Truman and the scientists who developed it, simply regarded the atomic bomb as new military technology. Military leaders hadn’t hesitated to use recently developed napalm on air raids over Tokyo so the atomic bomb was considered, simply, as another easy option of force. Ambrose and Brinkley also suggest that many administrators felt deployment of the new weapon was the only justification to Congress and the public for spending two billion dollars on the research and development for it. Others felt that Japan needed to be punished for the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor and felt the atomic bomb would destroy enough so the American public would finally feel Pearl Harbor avenged. The use of the bomb would also allow Japan to save face to themselves and the world. The Japanese army, prepared to fight to the death to avoid dishonor, would not consider surrendering even when Allied victory was eminent. The atomic bomb gave Japan a way out. No longer would surrender seem dishonorable against such a horrific weapon. Another ...