An Avoidable Catastrophe In the discussion of the dropping of atomic bombs by the United States on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one controversial issue has been justification for the use of nuclear weapons. On the one hand, Spence Tucker argues that the atomic bomb was the only way to permanently end World War II because Japan was willing to fight to the death, and the bombs would also deter Soviet aggression. On the other hand, Gar Alperovitz argues that the United States had information suggesting that the war would end soon and that the atomic bombs were intended to show the might of the United States to the USSR. By extension, my personal opinion is related to that of Gar Alperovitz: I do not believe that the use of the atomic bomb was justified. However, I am convinced that the United States had conflicting political intentions in managing the atomic bomb, and that President Harry Truman had other alternatives to explore before hastily deciding on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In his article, “The Drop of the Bomb: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Drop of the Bomb Was Unjustified,” Gar Alperovitz states that in fact the atomic bombs were unjustified. Specifically, he argues that the United States had information that suggested the war would end soon, as Japan was already surrendering. Alperovitz also believes that the use of bombs was linked to the Soviet Union: America wanted to flaunt its power before the USSR because the United States did not want to share its gains in the Pacific. Therefore Gar Alperovitz does not believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified because Japan was close to surrender, and the reason for the bomb also concerned the Soviet Union, a statement I agree with. In contrast, Spence C. Tucker, who states that the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary, specifically supports the bombs because they would force Japan's unconditional surrender and would be "the only way to quickly end the war." He also states that Japan showed no signs of surrendering while civilians were trained because Japanese culture honored and idealized fighting to the death. However, I do not completely agree with Tucker, but instead strongly agree with Gar Alperovitz that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was unjustified. I believe this is true because Japan was showing signs of surrender. According to Gar Alperovitz, Japan was on the verge of surrender because the nation was “essentially defeated,” not only because “its navy [was] at the bottom of the ocean” and “its air force [was] limited by fuel, equipment and , and other shortcomings,” but also because Japan was “facing defeat on all fronts.” Since Japan was already planning to surrender and end the war, I see no point in dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe that the justification that the bombs would have decisively and quickly ended the Second World War has no basis: according to Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, through Alperovitz, Japan had "already asked for peace", causing the American bombs “[will play] no decisive role, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” I think that if a nation surrenders, that is as decisive as a defeat can be; atomic bombs would not have ended the war any further. Although I admit that the launch?