On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The bomb killed “some 80,000 people in a flash and left about 120,000 more to die an agonizing death from burns and radiation” (Bulliet, pg. 797). The city was utterly destroyed. All that was seen standing were the skeletons of a few concrete buildings. On August 9th another atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. The same type of destruction was seen afterwards in this city. The Japanese then surrendered on August 14, 1945. Should the United Stated have dropped the atomic bombs? Many people had different views about the necessity of this bombing. Two opposing opinions about this topic are shown within The Human Record. The Committee on the Social and Political Implications of Atomic Energy, chaired by James Franck, wrote the first insert entitled “Scientists’ Warnings on Atomic Warfare: The Franck Report.” The Franck Report was the committee’s recommendations crystallizing the group’s fear about atomic warfare. The report was sent to Washington, and it was urging President Roosevelt, and then later his successor President Truman,

The second document entitled “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb” was written by Henry L. Stimson. It clearly shows the strong opinions of Stimson in reference to the dropping of the atomic bomb. He says that the Germans had experimental achievement of atomic fusion, and they were continuing their studies and experimentation. So that the Germans would not be the first to the battlefield with the new weapon, the United States experimented on its own and created an atomic bomb. He argued that the U. S. should have a weapon for “shortening the war and minimizing destruction” (Andrea/Overfield, pg. 418). The Interim Committee, the Secretary of War, and the Scientific Panel all met to discuss the subject of dropping the bomb. After the discussions with the Scientific Panel, the Interim Committee unanimously adopted the following recommendations: “The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible. It should be used on a dual target—that is, a military installation or war plant surrounded by or adjacent to houses and other building most susceptible to damage. It should be used with out prior warning {of the nature of the weapon}” (Andrea/Overfield, pg. 419). In making these decisions the Interim Committee also considered alternatives such demonstration in an uninhabited area or giving an advance warning. Both of these ideas were discarded as impractical. Both ideas involved serious risk and probably would not end in the surrender of Japan as the United States desired. Stimson argued that nothing would be more damaging to the effort to obtain the surrender of the Japanese than a warning or demonstration that is followed by a bomb that does not explode as it is supposed to when dropped. Since this weapon was still very new and in the experimental stage, it was very possible that this could occur.

In “The Frank Report” many points are argued as to why atomic warfare should not be used. The Committee on the Social and Political Implications of Atomic Energy claimed that they needed to take a more active stand against the use of the atomic bomb because this weapon is more dangerous and destructive then any weapon yet produced. “In the past, science has often been able to provide also new methods of protection against new weapons of aggression it made possible, but it cannot promise such efficient protection against the destructive use of nuclear power” (Andrea/Overfield, pg. 415). The Committee goes on to write that nuclear power would shatter any nation that it was used against including Russia and China. These two nations could have their industries dispersed over an immense space and do not have a high value of human life. If an atomic bomb were dropped in one of the major cites in either of these nations, they too would probably crumble. The use of the atomic bomb could be prevented all together if an international agreement on the total prevention of nuclear warfare was developed. Whereas the sudden use of the atomic bomb did provide military advantages against Japan and save American lives, it may be outweighed by the loss of confidence a

Some topics in this essay:
Atomic Energy, Russia China, James Franck, Henry Stimson, Interim Committee, Potsdam Ultimatum, Bomb August, Projects Committee, United Nations, Japanese Army, atomic bomb, andrea/overfield pg, interim committee, henry stimson, implications atomic energy, political implications, implications atomic, atomic energy, social political, committee social, committee social political, political implications atomic, social political implications, using atomic bomb, dropped atomic,