The main reason that Truman sought unconditional surrender was to weaken Japan's military. The military had wreaked havoc upon various cities in China and killed thousands of civilians, and committed horrific atrocities. Even if they had surrendered, but had kept their military and Emperor in their positions of power, no one knew if they would declare war again, or continue attacking China or other countries. It was necessary to show our power to the Japanese in order to keep peace in the future, and the atomic bomb was probably the most effective way to do this.

While it is true that the bomb did have lasting effects, it would have been nearly impossible to determine the effects of radiation before the bombs had been dropped. While it would be a much more inhumane form of warfare today because of that knowledge, the aftermath of the nuclear effects were most likely not predicted before the bomb was dropped. I saw a video last week of five American men standing near ground zero of one of the atomic bomb tests; had we known about the medical conditions that could be caused by radiation, it is unlikely that those men would be allowed to be at ground zero with no protection.

The atomic bombs should have been dropped. As the Japanese were people who despised ultimate surrender and felt incredible amounts of pride for their country, their surrender from the war would not come easily.The mass deaths of Japanese citizens and soldiers was unavoidable. Even with the threat of "prompt and utter destruction" in the Potsdam Declaration, Emperor Hirohito ignored the document. While peace negotiations were incredibly brief, it is unlikely that the Emperor and military would have allowed more time for negotiations, or even paid attention to other negotiations.

Other alternatives to the bomb drops were violent alternatives, such as Operation Downfall. The invasion would call for the capture of a third of one of Japan's main islands, Kyushu. The second part of the invasion would involve invading part of Tokyo. Estimated American casualties varied from 105,000 over 120 days (for the first part of the invasion) to 1.7 through 4 million casualties to conquer the entire country. The same study as the latter one also estimated 5 to 10 million Japanese casualties. Japanese authorities demanded that the civilians aid in defending their homeland, which explains the large number of Japanese casualties; simply disobeying the military was unheard of.

When the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the city had received no warnings of attack. There were no warnings for the second bombing either, other than an air raid warning which was quickly canceled. Japan had assumed in both bombings that the small amount of planes were simply flying reconnoissance missions; there was no outlying evidence to worry about a weapon of such mass destruction. This is the only aspect of the situation that I disagree with. With weapons that would cause such a large amount of deaths and injuries, warning citizens ahead of time and allowing them to evacuate their homes would have been more humane than forcing them to their deaths, or, for the survivors, suffering the rest of their lives from the burns and nuclear aftermath. However, thinking back on the alternative of invasion, it seems as though the deaths and suffering were, and are, a necessary sorrow.

While the civilians could arguably have been innocent of any of the crimes that the country committed, there were few options for ending the war. As Pearl Harbor gave as evidence, the military was not afraid of suicide bombing missions, and the atrocities committed in Manchuria and Nanking display even more horror. Even if civilians held low opinions of the war, would the military and Emperor allow the country to surrender? How long could the country last as its military attempted to kill everything in sight, and how long could peace reign? When the military and Emperor were told of what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they surrendered quickly, even agreeing to disarm themselves.

Overall, I believe that the dropping of the bomb was justified. Every alternative to this would lead either to millions of deaths or war in the future. For most circumstances, I would be against the usage of nuclear weaponry; however, with such constraints as there were during World War II, it seems to be the least sorrowful ending of the war.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/ c06.html

http://www.ralphmag.org/AQ/japan-ww2.html

It is true that much sacrifice went into the original document that created this nation; however, not all first drafts are perfect. The government learned from the Articles of Confederation that it was too weak. The nation would never be successful if it was not united by a sovereign federal government more powerful than the states. Yes, the document could be changed, but so far it has only been changed in order to help the nation progress to its modern views. For example, minorities and women can now vote due to amendments to the constitution, and a civilian is now defined as a person born in America. Certain amendments could be considered harmful, such as the prohibition of alcohol, but it was originally placed in the constitution in order to better the nation. As the nation became worse because of it, the amendment was nullified.

Blood has been spilled in order to gain these amendments and rights given by the Constitution. If the Constitution were unchangeable, I believe that the nation would be worse off than it is now, where there is at least a higher standard of equality than in the mid-1900's and before.

Without a unifying document, the United States of America will be little else than an amalgamation of self-governing countries. Without a more powerful federal government, who will protect this country in times of war? How will currency be standardized? Who would discuss trade and treaties with foreign countries to benefit the country as a whole? And what would keep us unified as any other powerful country is? In order to give the federal government the powers labeled in the constitution, more than the simple majority of the states must agree to its provisions. Along with this, the powers of Congress lie indirectly with the state, through the House of Representatives and the Senate. Congress makes the laws, and inevitably, the House will perform their job in accordance to what they believe their state would wish for, while the Senate will focus more on what the nation would want as a whole. The President's main tasks regard foreign issues, such as war and selecting ambassadors. This leaves national issues in the hands of Congress and the Supreme Court - essentially, in the hands of the state and a group of people whose job is only to determine the constitutionality of challenged laws. While Congress's powers would be increased, it is unlikely that the laws proposed by them would significantly harm the nation. Certainly, people of differing political ideologies will have issues with laws that oppose their ideas; however, this is impossible to avoid. As members of the House of Representatives have terms of only two years, they will keep the interests of their states in mind in order to remain in good standing. Overall, by ratifying the Constitution, the states wouldn't be losing much power. The federal government would gain power, but only for the overall good and unification of the nation.