I agree that it was morally wrong to drop the atomic bomb. President Truman and other American officials were aware of the utter destruction that the bomb would cause and how many innocent civilian lives would be lost from it. It is still difficult for me to believe that there was absolutely no other way to end the war then to kill 100,000 within a few minutes. Had the Japanese been ready to surrender, as many have argued, then his decision was definitely not justified. I also do not believe that a decision this grave should have been made in haste. Not only was the first bomb catastrophic, but the second bomb also had terrible consequences.

I agree that the decision to drop the atomic bomb was morally wrong and cannot be justified in a sense of killing over 100,000 people. However with that said, the U.S. had a difficult decision to make and had to weigh the number of American lives that would be lost and the number of Japanese lives. Had the Americans invaded Japan, there would have been catastrophic effects leaving thousands on both sides dead. It is also unsure of how long the war would continue. It is in fact the government's job to protect the lives of as many Americans as possible and this was the reasoning behind it. It is also true that Japanese culture is filled with pride and honor and they would not surrender without a fight, prolonging the war even more.

Morally, the U.S., and more specifically President Truman, was not justified in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although it is true that an all out invasion of Japan would have caused thousands of American casualties, it is not necessarily true that there should be that same number of casualties, if not more, in Japan. President Truman and his constituents could have established a meeting with the Japanese, or at least attempted to, in order to find another way to end the war. Many have argued that President Truman was rushed and that he was forced to make a decision quickly. However, dropping a bomb that would lead to complete, utter, destruction of innocent human lives and to thriving land is not a decision that should be taken lightly. The effects of those two bombs would be felt long after the war ended. Historians have cited that Japan was ready to surrender and had this been the case, President Truman was certainly not justified in dropping the bomb. The world should not operate solely on the maxim that the end justifies the means, or else each individual would be operating solely on their first inclinations with no consequences. Society does not and should not operate that way. History is meant to serve as a learning opportunity, a chance to learn from mistakes made in the past. Since the dropping of the atomic bomb, the debates over nuclear power have continued well into today precisely for the reason to avoid what happened on that day.

I agree that the Constitution should not be ratified, simply on the basis that there is a lack of Bill of Rights. The entire reason for the American Revolution was to get as far away as possible from an unjust and overbearing government. There was enough blood that was shed from the war that there does not need to be a document developed internally that may lead to the same type of political power they fought so hard to get rid of. The Constitution lays out a certain type of government structure, however makes little to no mention at all about the American people's rights, which is one of the most important aspects of rebuilding this nation.

After the Revolution, there needed to be order restored in the United States. The writers of the Constitution and the Federalists had the right idea by restoring faith in the government and by also implementing a clear separation of powers through the three branches of government. The first order of business was to clearly distinguish what powers the government had in order to get the country back on its feet. A lack of a bill of rights is not enough of a foundation for the Constitution not to be ratified, although it is a point to be made.