itain, and the USSR. If the United States had made arrangements with these countries not to use nuclear weapons before the it had dropped the bomb, a treaty might have been possible. Since the United States had already utilized this knowledge, such an agreement had become almost impossible (Brison 5). As mentioned in the Szilard Petition, the bomb made "total annihilation of cities" possible (qtd. in Szilard 1-2). The size of a country's arsenal, military or even geography had become irrelevant for the first time (Brison 3) . One argument for the bomb is that it saved lives by ending the war quicker. Whose lives were saved by dropping the most deadly bomb known to man on to a civilian population? It certainly did not save the lives of the 350,000 people exposed. It did not save the lives of the 80,000 killed in Hiroshima, nor the 40,000 instantly killed in Nagasaki (Stokesbury 494). It certainly did not save the lives of the 140,000 people that died by the end of the year. Some might argue that it saved the lives of Allied soldiers leading an invasion. By this they mean that Japanese civilians and non-combatants were more deserving of death than soldiers. According to an article in National Geographic, "...an Allied invasion with massive casualties was unlikely." (qtd. in Gup 98). However, an atomic explosion with massive casualties is very likely. The other main argument is that this ended the war. Evidence previously mentioned has shown that Japan had already lost the war and was ready to give up. An enemy in a war that is over needs to be defeated like water that needs to get wet or fire that needs to get hot. In conclusion there was absolutely no reason to drop the atomic bomb. Thousands of lives were lost. Several thousands more were destroyed. Alternatives were not explored thoroughly. The dropping of the atomic bomb began a nuclear arms race and made war more deadly than it had ever been before. Lastly, i...
