To What Extent Was Truman's Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb Justified Research Paper

To What Extent Was Truman's Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb Justified - Research Paper Example The first atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima by a B-29 war craft on august 6 1945, resulting in the destruction of the city and instant deaths of over 90,000 people. It is still not clear why japan hesitated in surrendering after the damage and carnage in Hiroshima as the Truman administration did not give them much time to respond. On august 9 1945, the second atomic bomb was dropped over Nagasaki, a secondary target, to avoid poor visibility due to bad weather in Kokura, the primary target. The bombing of Nagasaki resulted in over 60,000 instant deaths. The Truman administration was planning on further attacks, but japan surrendered 5 days after Nagasaki bombing. These actions exposed Truman to sharp criticism, with many people referring to the bombings as barbaric. The main aim of this report is to use various primary and secondary sources to determine the level to which Truman’s actions were justified. Primary sources include official documents, eyewitness accounts and excerpts from harry Truman’s speeches and diaries, and secondary sources include textbooks and journal articles supporting or opposing Truman’s actions. ... In any case, the American public was getting weary of war and Truman wanted to conclude it to prevent the countless deaths that were happening at the hands of the Japanese2. In addition, Truman was not enjoying the public perception that he was too soft on the Japanese3. Russia had the intentions of taking over the Japanese territory and something had to be done about it; and Truman figured that the United States had to show its power to the world to prevent the Soviet Union from emerging as the world’s super power4. Truman thought that if Russia gained any more power than it had, then it would resort to enforcement, spread and strengthening of communism5. The atomic bombs seemed to be the ideal tool to show America's superiority over the Soviet Union; and Truman showed the Soviet Union that he had the bombs and was ready to use them6. Japan only acted as a demonstration board since the United States was neither in good terms with japan, nor with the soviet union. However, Tru man did not expect to cause deaths of innocent civilians, in fact, he believed that the two cities he ordered bombed were military bases7. In addition, Japan, USSR, and Germany were developing nuclear weapons; it was only a matter of the country that could use theirs first, which was mainly the reason why the United States joined hands with Canada and United Kingdom to pursue the Manhattan project8. To avoid the possibility of a nuclear war, Truman decided to use the means at his disposal to instill fear to the other countries developing the weapons. The other reason cited for Truman's use of the atomic bombs was to end the war as quickly as possible so that he could save countless of lives, including American9, Japanese, and

Relativism and Morality Essay Example for Free

Relativism and Morality Essay Is it ethical? Will it be right? Is it a small sacrifice for the betterment of the future? All these questions do not have exact answers. You can never give a straight cut answer to all the above questions. You can never exactly say that a particular thing is completely right or completely wrong. All this varies from people to people and culture to culture. Individual personalities have different philosophies regarding particular thought and belief. There is never completely a black or white it is in between. It is grey. This is relativism. Relativism can be defined â€Å"as the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration†. According to relativism all views are considered valid. Well relative truth varies with people for example, a person prefers a red coloured car over black coloured car, where other person may disagree. True for one person is not true for another. So relative truth can’t be right or wrong. But greater than relative truth is Morality, where you see whether your actions are causing any harm to another and stop doing such things. Here which causes problems or harm someone should be considered as wrong. It is absolutely wrong on the part of our moral values to harm someone. There is a very fine line between morality and relative truth, moral values also varies from people to people and culture to culture but morality will never do any bad(even if it’s right for the other person). It is rightly said about moral by Ernest Hemingway â€Å"About morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after. † There are some things that are absolutely wrong and therefore I agree with Lenn Goodman. He is right on his part in challenging relativism and I fully support him. Just suppose if everyone was allowed to do as they wish, what a horrid place this could have been. If everything was so relative and there was no right or wrong then one person could have killed other for his better future, and he would never have got any punishment. Because on his part, he was right. Also sometimes we have to rise above principles to challenge wrong. For example, America would have never got independence if slavery was discussed on principles. But if we see overall, it was a good thing going against the principles because slavery was the wrong being done. Same goes with the case of India’s independence where the freedom fighters were called terrorists just because they fought against the government for their own rights. But not every compromise is that easy to digest. It was wrong what happened with Germany in the first world war was bad but what followed in the second world war by Nazis may be a reaction was not tolerable. It was like removing a whole community from the world, that was worst. How can one have the right to destroy the being of the whole community or clan, just to satisfy one’s own selfish motives. Or you thing this is right for your own community or culture, but this is completely wrong. It is not human. Our moral values and love and respect for each other is what differentiates us from ruthless animals. Every human deserves respect, love and moral behaviour even if there is culture difference or some other difference. We all are made of same thing and thus have the same needs which mainly includes Respect. The main examples which truly challenge relativism are genocide, famine, terrorism, slavery, chid warrior and rape. Everyone has the right to life, no one can take away that right just because he thinks it’s right. Killing a single person and killing the whole community is different. Killing of whole community(genocide) being uglier, because it destroys not only dreams but destroy the being of the whole community, it can then well said to be extinct just like the bird Dodo. Genocide simply destroys a way of life. This is not humane. What the soviets did to Ukraine or Mao to China, was the part of a so called bigger plan, a small compromise. But a compromise which is difficult to live by. Millions of people lost their lives, and people lost their mother, father, brother and what not. This was simply wrong and cannot be considered relativism. The cultural revolution in China which was brought about by Mao, was wrong. It was relatively a right thing on the part of Mao. But it was wrong on the moral, ethical and human part. The number of Deaths during Mao’s period was about 70 million and he was ready to sacrifice 300 million. He had no right to control people’s life like that. This is where relativism should be challenge, because this is simply unfair and unacceptable. The other example is of terrorism, it’s also like mass killing of a community out of frustration and anger, which is illegal. As compared with the above example which is considered legal, as it is for some revolution; terrorism is you can say illegal. You don’t have the power to destroy someone’s life but you want to have that power, power is confused with violence. Terrorists say that they fight for some values, but they themselves destroy values by guns and bombs, by killing innocent people. By bombing school bus or by exploding some monument, to build fear in people. This is what the terrorists are doing, how can this be said to be fighting for your rights when today you can be creating people who want to take revenge from you, the same way you did, and someone else did to you. This is a never ending chain. Humanity will be the sufferer and this is completely wrong. It is unacceptable. The damage is devastating and not by any chance humane. Child warriors is also very wrong on the part of humanity. The innocence of child is lost, he becomes emotionless after all the what he suffers. There are around 300,000 child soldiers, it is legal to have children below 15 in the army, no one is convicted of it till now. They are even used as sex slaves and exploited. They grow up with these scars and in return are ready to give scars to others. War, genocide or terrorism whatever is there, whosoever is the winner, humanity will always be the looser. Innocence of people, their dreams to live a happy life, their achievements, what good they could have given to the world all get killed along with them because of the inhumane ways of so called humans, the ways being war, genocide, famine or terrorism. Slavery can be equalled to murder, but here it is the murder of one’s wishes, desires and dreams. The person is alive but his soul is no less then dead. Human trafficking mainly includes women and children. Women and children are mainly used in prostitution, as labors and for agriculture mainly men are trafficked. Around four million people are trafficked and people from Thailand, Vietnam, China, Mexico, Russia, and the Czech Republic are the victims. This is completely wrong. The use of humans here is not tolerable and unfair. It is taking advantage of other people’s weakness. This is not fair on part of humanity. Rape is also exploitation, it aims to abuse and humiliate the sufferer. It violates one’s personhood. It is an act of hate and not love. Rape is used even today in wars or genocide wars, it is a weapon to humiliate and abuse the opponent. This is not good at all, and should be stopped. It is wrong on the part of humanity. Here also humanity is the one that suffers. Exploitation of people for your own benefits has always been wrong and should be stopped. It takes away one’s freedom to live life his own way. Whether it is the case of genocide , warfare, murder, slavery, rape or child warrior, nothing can be considered right and can never be right even according to relativism. It is not moral, it is not humane. Even if there are relativistic truths in this world. And ethics and morals have evolved over time. It changes from people to people, culture to culture, with time and with place. Even then somehings are simply wrong when it comes to humanity. It is well known that two hundred years ago there was slavery in America. It was considered right at that time, we can consider it was right, that doesn’t mean it was actually right. It was inhumane. If this was not thought at that time, then slavery would have existed till now in America. If it was not wrong even at that time, then no one would have made an effort to stop this exploitation of human being. There should be global moral norms made, inorder to stop this evil on human race. Everything should not be left on relativism and such logics should not be given, that is is right according to me and it is for the betterment of the society. Then it should be made clear that by doing genocides and practicing slavery, the society will never get better. People should rise above their culture limitation, to achieve a greater goal, i. e. success of humanity. By practicing norms that benefit us but without compromising other people’s life, dreams and freedom. This will make the world a better place to live. People should see to it that everyone has the right to life, and we are no one to take it away from him. Everyone should take care of others emotion, ritual, feeling and should not violate it, this is right for sure. Individuals should see to ot that everything contributes in the success of humanity, and then everything can be considered right. This I can say for sure is Absolute Truth and not Relative Truth. It is rightly said by Martin Luther King â€Å"The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. †

A Walk In The Woods: Chapter 9 :: essays research papers

Bill Bryson the author of the short story ‘A Walk in the Woods’ constructs the story in a certain way to try to get the reader to accept his attitudes and values about how dangerous and death defying Earl V. Shaffer and other’s are in attempting to travel the trail. He uses the techniques of emotive language, unusual language and use of first hand accounts in the short story ‘A Walk in the Woods‘ . The use of descriptive and humorous language, combined with conversational text has allowed Bryson to express his feelings and opinions on his and others experiences on the Appalachian Trail to the audience. The language that the author uses in the short story is very emotive and expressed the feeling which have been felt by others on the trail. The author uses emotive language throughout the story to position us to feel amazed and astonished toward Earl V. Shaffer’s 2000 mile journey on the trail. †He spent long periods bushwhacking over tangled mountains or following the wrong path when the trail forked.†, this text shows that Shaffer was a tough and sturdy and wouldn’t give up for any reason. â€Å" On the other hand, even the dustiest little hamlets nearly always have a store of cafà ©, unlike now, and generally when he left the trail he could count on a country bus to flag down for a lift to the nearest townâ€Å". The reader is also told that he might have been helped along the way, so suspicion arises. â€Å"...Reduced to a rutted, muddy track†¦Ã¢â‚¬  shows that the trail conditions at times were anything but perfect. ‘Rutted’ and ‘muddy’ describe the Appalachian Trail as an almost tough and hardy trail to trek across. â€Å"The trail Shaffer found was nothing like the groomed and orderly corridor that exists today† shows how the Appalachian trail appears to Bryson and portrays to the audience a trail affected by modern societies requirement of health and neatness. 'orderly' and 'groomed' are used to portray an image of a beautiful trail that is set out neatly, far from what Shaffer would have experienced on his travel along the trying trail. The attempts of Bryson to explain the conditions fought by Shaffer on his trip were well complimented by descriptive and explanatory sentences.Bryson uses the very distinct humorous and silly style of writing which entertains the audience very well.

Are parents to stick on their kids?

Today I am here to share with you about the loss of my beloved daughter, Juliet. As a father myself, I will be sharing the many mistakes I have made while raising Juliet, hoping you will be able to learn from my past experiences and not make the same mistakes I have already made. One of the biggest mistakes I made as a father is not giving Juliet the freedom she deserved. As parents, we want the best for our children as we want to ensure their safety.However, we tend to forget that they're growing up and we take away their hoicks and rights as we think we know what's best for them. An example of this would be when I threatened Juliet with eviction and portended to disown her if she didn't marry Paris that I would kick her out and disown her if she didn't get married to Paris. This was a very unreasonable and harsh decision I made, as I will regret this for the rest of my life as it will lead her to rebel and do things behind my back. If I had Just given her the freedom she deserved, things may not have ended up the way It has.One of the biggest mistakes I made as a father Is not giving Juliet the freedom she didn't marry Pans that I would kick her out and disown her if she didn't get married it has. Didn't marry Paris that I would kick her out and disown her if she didn't get married it has. Greetings to all. As you might be familiar already, I am Lord Caplet. Today I am here to share with you about the loss of my beloved daughter, Juliet. As a father myself, I will be sharing the many mistakes I have made while raising Juliet, hoping you will be able to learn from my past experiences and not make the same mistakes I have already made.

Haverwood Furniture Inc Case Study Essay

Background on the merger In April 2008 Haverwood Furniture merged with Lea-Meadows, a manufacturer of upholstered furniture for living and family rooms. The merger was not planned in any conventional sense. The merger proceeded smoothly since the two firms were located on adjacent locations and the two companies would maintain as much autonomy as was economically justified. The only real issue that still remained was merging the selling efforts. The question was straight-forward â€Å"do we give the upholstery line of chairs and sofas to our sales force, or do we continue using the sales agents?† Haverwood’s vice president said the line should be given to his sales group, but Lea-Meadows said the upholstery line should remain with sales agents. Lea-Meadows Inc. Lea-Meadows Inc. is a small, privately owned manufacturer of upholstered furniture for use in living and family rooms. The firm is more than 75 years old. The company has some of the finest fabrics and frame construction in the industry. Their net sales in 2007 were $5 million and the total industry sales in 2007 were $15.5 billion. A forecasted industry sale for 2008 is about $16.1 billion. Over the past 5 years sales had increased 3% annually, also believing that this trend would continue. Lea-Meadows employed 15 sales agents to represent its products. Sales agents found it necessary to deal with several buyers in a store in order to represent all the lines carried. On a typical sales call, a sales agent first visited buyers to discuss new lines, in addition to any promotions being offered by manufacturers. These new orders were sought where and when it was appropriate. Lea-Meadows paid an agent commission of 5 percent of net company sales for these services. Also were thought to have spent 10-15 percent of their in-store time on Lea-Meadows products. There is no influence on who to sell their products to but there is a stigma of not selling to discount houses. Records show that agents were calling on specialty furniture and department stores. An estimated 1,000 retail accounts were called on in 2006 and 2007. All agents had established relationships with their retail accounts and worked closely with them. Haverwood Furniture Inc. They are a manufacturer of medium- to high-priced wood bedroom, living room and dining room furniture. Their net sales in 2007 were $75 million; and the industry sales of wood furniture in 2007 were $12.4 billion. It is projected that in 2008 they will have $12.9 billion in industry sales. The company has 10 fulltime sales representatives, who call on 1,000 retail accounts. They perform the same activities as sales agents but were paid a salary plus a small commission. In 2007 the average sales representative received an annual salary of $70,000 and a commission of 5% on net company sales. Total administration costs were $130,000 Haverwood’s salespeople were highly regarded in the industry. They were known particularly for their knowledge of wood furniture and willingness to work with buyers and retail sales personnel. Sales representatives were presently making 10 sales calls per week with an average sales call running three hours. Their remaining time was accounted for by ad ministrative activities and travel. It was also recommended that the call frequency be increased to seven calls per account per year. Pros and Cons Points in favor for combing the two companies Haverwood has one of the most respected sales force in the industry. Their sales force could easily learn the lingo to interacting with upholstery buyers. Selling Lea-Meadows would only require 15% of present sales call times More control over sales efforts is possible and a combined sales forces fits with the belief that â€Å"only our people are willing and able to give† It would not look right if both representatives and agents called on the same stores and buyers because of the overlap on the companies on both companies’ accounts. Points in favor of keeping in the sales agents All sales agents had established clients and were highly regarded among the store buyers. Sales agents represent little cost beyond commission Sales agents were committed to the lea-meadows line. Sales agents were calling on buyers not contacted by haverwood sales force. Haverwood sales people would have a tough time learning the ways of lea-meadows because there are over 1 billion possible items to learn. Both companies make valid points but the main thing is to determine the cost and profitability. Financial calculations based off the cost of sales force,  and sales agents. Haverwood 10 (sales force members) x $70,000 (average salary) = $700,000 .005 (commission) x $75,000,000 (net sales) = $375,000 x 10 = $3,750,000 $130,000 (total sales administration costs) Total cost of sales force $4,580,000 Lea-meadows 5,000,000 (net sales) x .05 (commission) = $250,000 x 15 (sales agents) Total cost of sales agents $3,750,000 Although Lea-Meadows pays their sales agents less with 5 more employees, their profit margins fall 5% below that of Haverwood. It ultimately will affect them more than the cost for Haverwood affects them. If Lea-Meadows were to give their line to the Haverwood sales force, they would only need to pay for 15% of the cost for the sales force. Haverwood Total sales force cost = $4,580,000 Lea-Meadows $4,580,000 x .15 (percentage of time devoted to Lea-Meadows line) = $687,000 The decision to give the line to Haverwood saves Lea-Meadows $3,063,000. Haverwood’s sales process Haverwoods personal Sales forces Retail Consumer Lea-Meadows sales process Lea-Meadows Sales agency Retail Consumer