Do you think truman was justified in dropping the atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki? explain your answer

At base, there is an ethical justification for the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima as the United States was ready to mount a full scale invasion of Japan from China.

However, the Japanese were not given adequate time to surrender and so the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki was inexcusable.

President Truman himself felt he was justified in the use of atomic bombs. He said that it was the right thing to do on the grounds that doing so saved many lives.  In a radio address he gave prior to Japan's final surrender, he said that the use of atomic weapons was chosen "in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans." 

However, Notice that Truman's rationale speaks about the loss of life by American soldiers if a war on the ground were pursued in Japan.  It does not as much take into account Japanese lives, though many Japanese soldiers would also have lost their lives in conventional warfare if that were pursued.  And the atomic bombs killed an estimated 150,000 persons in Hiroshima and an estimated 75,000 persons in Nagasaki in a very short time.  Added to that were all sorts of severe, negative health effects that contributed to sickness and early death to many more people due to radiation from the bombs.  So on that basis, the use of the atomic bombs was not so justifiable.  It is appropriate to question the ethics of using the bombs rather than pursuing other alternatives for ending the war.

You'll notice I've not made the decision for you on which side you want to take in writing your essay answer.  I've given you some explanations from both sides.  You can choose which side of the argument you wish to defend in your class assignment.

he armenian genocide, also known as the armenian holocaust, was the ottoman government's systematic extermination of 1.5 million armenians, mostly citizens within the ottoman empire.

explanation: