Academic Master


the consequences of the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Truman’s regime

The United States has been part of war since time memorial due to some self-interest involved. The decision to drop the atomic bomb on Truman’s regime was a strategy to end the war first enough to eliminate any further destruction of lives as well as properties. The United States targeted Japan during the incident, and the bombing was part of World War II. President Harry Truman stands as one of the icons in American politics, who made such a divisive and controversial step to eliminate the prolonged condition. Most leaders in the region take some factors into consideration before embarking on such a decision. One of the complicated decisions to make during that time is the likelihood of using the weapon of such a destructive force in the incident. President Truman was merely executing an event that Franklin had previously commissioned. Roosevelt authorized a team to take part in the creation of the atomic bomb. Keeping the Manhattan Project a top secret was the order of the day during such an instance, and the reasons are apparent.

The firing of the Japanese cities was intense and cost the lives of many in the region. Moreover, some properties were destroyed. Dropping the “Little Boy,” as most people regard it, materialized in 1945 (Bernstein, 1975). After that, the defendants managed to use the second nuclear bomb, known as the “Fat Man.” The second bomb most targeted Nagasaki and equally caused so much destruction. Most scholars come out to condemn the bombing, citing reasons such as the destruction of property as well as the loss of life in different parts. Ideally, the justification is not enough since the core reason for the bombing, the termination of the Pacific War, is superior and contributes to the current co-existence between the countries. The nature of the war was intense, and having it for a prolonged period could have threatened lives and contributed to the destruction of properties past the encountered level during the bombing.

According to Stimson and Truman (1947), Truman was on the move to create sanity in the region. Hence, the focus was on the best approach to end the war in the shortest period possible. The use of the bomb was indeed quick, and the pain was not much as well. Only historians looking at the issue from a myopic perception are likely to condemn the act. The United States is always on the look, and using the lowest cost possible in ending the war was the epicenter of discussion in the region. The agony of war could have threatened the lives of many young Americans. Truman is a politician with a broad perspective on life. The future generation equally matters, and there is a need to secure their future. The world is full of alternatives. However, the bombing option was the only available and accessible option. Therefore, executing it was the best move to avoid future complications as a result of the far. Public confidence is an essential element in any government. Failure to execute the bombing could have affected Truman’s public confidence and rendered him incompetent. He could later face critics who were likely to impeach him. Markedly, such justification simply outlines that Truman had no other option but to execute the bombing. The lives of the citizens matter, and the diplomats in any state must use all the means available to improve the welfare of their citizens. That not only improves the powers of the government but also makes it possible to realize public confidence.

America will always strive to win in most cases, and the bombing provided diplomatic benefits. That was feasible through the formation of the Soviet Union. The platform accommodated the wishes of Americans, making it possible to dominate key activities in the region. Even though the bombing was not solely to please the Soviets, the action provided a competitive edge on matters related to the relationship among the nations. That is an application since the central target was to terminate the war. Any other benefit that comes after such action serves as a by-product but still adds value to the region. Before the encounter, some differences existed in the relationship with the Soviet Union. That changed after the bombing.

Aggregation is a number of instances that can make the opponent use a given move during the war. Japan adhered to such, and that forced the United States to unleash the bomb. The Emperor felt superior in most instances and could not provide a listening eye to the political affairs. Facing disappointments is part of life, and every good leader should learn to embrace such in most instances. The Japanese army was also inclined to the demands of the emperor, making it hard to address issues with a sober mind. The encounter not only resulted in the death of the civilians but also in the lives of the army (Gar Alperovitz, 1994). The battle of Okinawa left only 7,000 soldiers alive out of the 117,000 soldiers. Even though the United States initially offered room for mediation, the Japanese government turned a blind eye to that and left Truman with no option. The bombing was the only option to create a sense of respect and harmony in the region. Even though the central reason was the termination of the prolonged war that affected the relationship, there was the violation of the Kellogg-Briand as a result of the invasion that occurred in 1932, which also contributed to the bombing (Gar Alperovitz, 1994). Moreover, there was the attack on Pearl Harbor, which was dreadful in a way.

In conclusion, Every American agrees with the fact that the bombing saved millions of lives and thwarted the chances of sacrificing more lives in the region. Various stakeholders, including diplomats, took part in making the decision. That indicates the level of consideration placed to foster growth as well as success. The Soviets accepting demands a result of the bombing is a positive step in the lives of Americans. The possibility of delaying the blast could have presented some negative impacts on the state of the United States. Americans had to use self-defense to meet their demands and improve their relationship. Land invasions could have affected the lives of millions of Americans, and any government can’t buy such an idea. It is the role of the government in any instance to remain protective. The bombing stands as the only means to improve the lives of Americans. The Japanese oppressors never understood what they involved themselves in at such an instance. They thought the United States leadership was not ready to follow such a move to restore sanity in the region.


Stimson, H. L., & Truman, H. S. (1947). The decision to use the atomic bomb. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists3(2), 37-67.

Bernstein, B. J. (1975). Roosevelt, Truman, and the atomic bomb, 1941-1945: a reinterpretation. Political Science Quarterly90(1), 23-69.

Gar Alperovitz. (1994). Atomic diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam: the use of the atomic bomb and the American confrontation with Soviet power. Pluto Pr.

Herken, G. (2014). The Winning Weapon: The Atomic Bomb in the Cold War, 1945-1950. Princeton University Press.



Calculate Your Order

Standard price





Pop-up Message