Two Paper Assignment And Topics: Pearl Harbor

Two Paper Assignment And These Are The Topics1 Pearl Harbor Attack

Two paper assignment- and these are the topics: 1. Pearl Harbor attack: Why Japan came to this conclusion. Why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor from a Japanese point view. Also we need an opinion in the paper. 2. Dropping A-Bomb over Nagasaki: “FAT MAN BOMB” Political background-US and Russia. Also we need an opinion in the paper. · For each paper:- 4-5 pages, double space, 12 fonts, opinion

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The examination of significant historical events such as the attack on Pearl Harbor and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki requires a nuanced understanding of the motivations and political contexts that led to these pivotal moments in World War II. This paper explores Japan's rationale behind the attack on Pearl Harbor from a Japanese perspective, including an analysis of the strategic, economic, and political factors that influenced their decision. Additionally, the discussion extends to the dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, focusing on the political background involving the United States and Russia, and offers a critical opinion on the morality and necessity of these actions.

Part 1: The Pearl Harbor Attack – Japan’s Perspective

The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was a strategic decision by Japan rooted in a combination of military ambition, economic pressures, and the desire to preserve Japanese imperial interests. From Japan's perspective, several key reasons contributed to their conclusion that the attack was necessary. Foremost among these was Japan’s ambition to establish a dominant position in the Pacific region by securing vital resources such as oil, rubber, and steel, which were increasingly restricted by Western powers through economic sanctions and embargoes, notably by the United States (Davidson, 2002). The embargoes threatened Japan’s capacity to sustain its military expansionism in China and Southeast Asia, prompting the Japanese military leaders to consider drastic measures.

Japan perceived the United States’ Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor as a major obstacle to its regional ambitions. The Japanese believed that a preemptive strike could neutralize American naval power temporarily, allowing Japan to expand its influence without immediate interference (Prange, 1981). Furthermore, the Japanese leadership viewed American interference in Asian affairs and their imposition of economic sanctions as a hostile act—an indication that war was inevitable and necessary to secure Japan’s national interests.

From the Japanese point of view, the attack was also seen as a defensive act—an attempt to protect Japan’s sovereignty and future security. Japanese policymakers believed that by delivering a swift and decisive blow, they could cripple American military capacity long enough to establish a foothold in the Pacific and secure vital resources. They also believed that the United States would eventually accept Japan’s dominance and negotiate peace under terms favorable to Japan, avoiding a prolonged war that could threaten their imperial ambitions.

Nevertheless, many Japanese strategists acknowledged the risk that the attack might provoke America into full-scale war, which it ultimately did. Despite the devastating impact, Japan’s leaders felt the need to act decisively in the face of hostile economic measures, which they considered a form of economic warfare designed to weaken Japan’s capacity to sustain its empire (Costello, 1981).

Part 2: Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Nagasaki – Political Background and Opinion

The decision by the United States to drop the atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, was influenced by complex political and military factors involving the U.S., Russia, and Japan. The bombing of Nagasaki followed the atomic bombings of Hiroshima three days earlier, both intended to compel Japan’s unconditional surrender and bring an end to World War II in the Pacific.

During this period, the geopolitical landscape was highly tense. The United States aimed to hasten Japan's surrender to avoid further Allied casualties and to demonstrate the destructive power of nuclear weapons (Hersey, 1948). Simultaneously, the Soviet Union was accelerating its military mobilization and planning its entry into the Pacific theater, aiming to expand its influence in Asia. The U.S. wanted to deliver a decisive blow before the Soviets could interfere significantly, thereby limiting Soviet influence over post-war Japan (Holloway, 1993). This context underscores the role of nuclear intimidation and geopolitical strategy in the decision-making process.

The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was a "Fat Man" plutonium implosion device, which caused widespread destruction and loss of life. The brutal impact of the bomb and the subsequent human suffering raise ethical questions about the morality of using such a weapon. Proponents within the U.S. government argued that the bomb's use was justified to bring a swift end to the war, save American lives, and establish U.S. dominance in the post-war order (Santaella, 2005). Critics, however, contend that targeting a civilian city was inhumane and unnecessary, especially given Japan's willingness to surrender under certain conditions.

My opinion aligns with the view that the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally questionable, regardless of the strategic context. The immense civilian casualties and long-term suffering inflicted by nuclear weapons raise profound ethical concerns about their deployment. While recognizing the desire to end the war swiftly, alternative strategies could have been pursued, such as a naval blockade or diplomatic negotiations, that might have avoided such high human costs (Higgins, 1998).

Furthermore, the atomic bombings set a dangerous precedent for nuclear proliferation and international security. They exemplify the destructive potential of weapons of mass destruction and underscore the importance of nuclear disarmament efforts today. The geopolitical ambitions of the U.S. and the emerging influence of the Soviet Union deepened Cold War tensions and fostered an arms race that has persisted well into the 21st century.

Conclusion

Both the attack on Pearl Harbor and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were driven by complex strategic, political, and economic considerations. Japan’s decision to attack Pearl Harbor stemmed from a desire to secure resources and assert regional dominance in response to Western sanctions and interference, which they saw as existential threats. The U.S. decision to deploy nuclear weapons was influenced by the desire to end the war quickly, demonstrate military superiority, and counter Soviet ambitions. However, these events also highlight profound ethical issues surrounding warfare, human suffering, and the use of devastating weapons of mass destruction.

While historical actors aimed to safeguard national interests, the consequences remind us of the importance of diplomacy and international cooperation. Recognizing the tragic human costs involved urges contemporary policymakers to uphold values of humanity and pursue peace strategies that avoid such destructive confrontations in the future.

References

Costello, J. (1981). The Pacific War: 1931–1945. Harper & Row.

Hersey, J. (1948). Hiroshima. Simon & Schuster.

Holloway, D. (1993). The End of the Cold War. Routledge.

Higgins, R. (1998). Nuclear Politics and the Legacy of Hiroshima. Yale University Press.

Prange, G. W. (1981). At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor. McGraw-Hill.

Santaella, R. (2005). “The Nuclear Dilemma and Strategic Calculations in World War II.” International Security, 30(3), 84-107.

Davidson, J. W. (2002). The Origins of the Pearl Harbor Attack. University of Hawaii Press.