e1.2

[Jiwon Nam]

Jiwon Nam
English 101 #3226
Prof. O Connell
E.1.2
3/5/2010
Goldhagen’s [Worse than War] starts its chapter by addressing Harry
Truman as a mass murderer. [Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary] and
[Hiroshima: Nuclear weapons, then and now] editorials justifies
Truman’s decision to authorize the atomic bomb attacks on Japan during
World War ll. Editorials are wrong because Harry Truman’s decision was
a self-centered choice that he made which was not right. Moreover,
detonating bombs to sputter 2 cities with thousands of people is not a
salvation act, and it is absurd to rationalize such behavior by
contrasting on whom has started the act of aggression. Japan would
have defeated even without the bomb being present which concludes that
detonating atomic bombs wasn’t necessary in the first place.
Editorial [Hiroshima bombing anniversary] claims that “Truman made a
tough call – but the right one.” Truman did made a choice but it was
neither tough nor right. It was selfish and fast way of concluding the
World War ll. He stood firm as a rock to win over Japan with the power
he had rather than persuading them or negotiating options. He made an
egoistic decision which was wrong that cost Japan lots of innocent
lives. Editorial [Hiroshima: Nuclear weapons, then and now.] claims
that “if we're going to reflect seriously about the bomb, we ought
first to think about it as they did.” Eye-for-an-eye conception laid
behind this belief is wrong because there is a difference between self-
defense and excessive self-defense. The act of bombing was a not act
of self-defense, but rather extreme measure of aggressive payback
which literally eliminated thousands of people. Therefore it can’t be
humanely justified by simply comparing acts of responsibility.
Editorial also expresses that “what those big bombs chiefly
represented was salvation,” but that’s wrong because how the act of
eliminating more than quarter of million people with dropping atomic
bombs could be called as a salvation act? Harry Truman was not Hitler,
but he was not acting in salvation either. No matter what reasons the
editorial praise his decision for, the act of detonating bombs
destroyed 2 cities with permanent nuclear damage and took away lives
of 300,000 people in total. Truman might be a savior for those
American soldiers who won the war exchange to the lives of men, women,
and children – civilians, but not for those who suffered and still
suffers from the bombing that happened 65 years ago.
Even regarding to the noble causes that led to Truman’s decision,
detonating bombs on people consist of civilians was unnecessary.
Moreover, one bomb is disincentive enough to have gotten Truman the
goal that he wanted to accomplish. Was it really necessary to
completely annihilate 2 cities? This alternative opinion is supported
by the suffering that numerous people including children went through
which some are still suffering from. It was disastrous to those that
died, but also fatal to those who have managed to survive the atomic
bomb. Additionally, even if the war had taken a while longer and more
people were hurt, Japan would have defeated with or without the bomb.
People might suffer from the extension of the war, but at least they
wouldn’t be inflicted by the irreversible assault on humanity which
consequences are worse than war. This opinion is supported by
Goldhagen at [Worse than War] when he mentions Dwight Eisenhower
saying “I voiced to him [Secretary of War Henry Stimson] my grave
misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already
defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.”
Therefore, atomic bombs were excessive step to take in the first
place.