Saying that the Japanese were fighting the war unjustly so we could do it too cannot justify. Some like Fussell would argue that the atomic bombs were dropped just to end the war. Thousands of people died in mere minutes and two cities were virtually wiped off the face of the earth. The bombs that wiped off whole families and buildings. Just saying that war was bad and unbearable is a feeble justification. Total destruction is not the only way to end a war. The United States asking for unconditional surrender also lead to the dropping of the bomb. This unconditional surrender would have required extraordinary measures, as it did, but couldn't the United States negotiated something else? Was there not something less than unconditional surrender? …show more content…
Government in 1945 who thought a negotiated settlement possible without an invasion and the use of the atomic bomb” Many people say that the dropping of the bombs saved many American lives but if the government had been able to do it without dropping the bomb and saved Japanese lives too, even if that meant something less than unconditional surrender. Fussell explains that the Japanese were ready to fight to the last men, but why couldn't negotiate something else even if it wasn't unconditional surrender. As for Fussell's arguments that the “further from the war, the easier the talk” I understand that I may never know what it feels like to be part of an army that's about to go into war but my opinion as an American citizen should be valid because is part of our history, that what makes us a society, is part of something that we should all care about. There is a reason why we are taught about it in school. His point of view is valid and he proved that he is not the only one who “thanked God for the atom