Many questions lie within the history of the United States of America. Was there a second gunman involved in the assassination of JFK? Did we really go to the moon? Who really framed Roger Rabbit? All of these questions, valid or not, can be proven by facts and logistics. One of the harder, philosophical questions we must ask, however, is the use of the Atomic Bomb during World War II. True, there are many facts to bolster each side of this debate, but the true quandary lies in the morality of the situation. Was the use of an Atomic weapon morally justified? Was the use of this weapon even necessary to complete any objectives behind using it? It is easy to look back and say that Japan was already a beaten nation, and to therefore ask was there any justification for the use of the Atom Bomb to kill so many civilians? But beaten and defeated seem to be two very different terms in the Japanese culture.
"They would have continued to fight until every last person on the island was deceased"(John,52). Therefore, I assert that the Atom Bomb was not only necessary to end the war in the Pacific, but also to save many innocent lives. There are justifications for both the negative side, which says the bomb was not needed to end WWII, and the affirmative side which holds with the validity of our actions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
On April 12th, 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt complained of a "terrific headache" and died two hours later from severe cerebral hemorrhage. Harry S. Truman was sworn in later that night to a small group of spectators. The Atomic Bomb's initial purpose was to counteract any German bomb produced. Truman was informed on May 7th, 1945 that Germany had surrendered.