Nuclear Discussion Reflection

Personally, I feel that the argument for dropping the bomb was more compelling than that for not dropping it. Both sides knew that they needed to end the war quickly because it was draining the economies of both. Even though there was a test of the bomb in New Mexico, they couldn’t have imagined the destructive power that they unleashed. However, they knew that there had been no precedent for this amount of destruction in history, and that whatever decision they chose would drastically affect the outcome of the war. I think that the United States did what was best for itself in the war, which is all any country in a war should be preoccupied with. It’s true that casualties on both sides have to be considered, but when it comes right down to it, you want to be on the winning side of the war regardless of the circumstances. While this philosophy may seem uncompassionate towards the value of human life, keep in mind that many more people would have to die in order to end the war by ordinary measures. In order to fully defeat Japan, a country known for its loyalty and resolve, we would have had to invade the country itself. The combination of rugged terrain and guerrilla warfare would have made any progress immensely difficult. This would have also dragged on for many more weeks, costing more lives in the end. As the president, when faced with the decision to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers or even more soldiers, both American and Japanese, he (or she) should choose the former because it minimizes the loss of life and protects our own interests as a country in war. For these reasons, I feel that the United States was completely justified in dropping the first atomic bomb in history.