Atomic Bomb

PREVENT A TRAGEDY

Highly respected Mr.President:

It has come to my attention, as it inevitably would and should, that currently you are faced with a difficult decision of whether to use or not to use the atomic bomb developed by the crew of the Manhattan Project to bomb the city of Hiroshima, Japan. While in the end the decision is up to you no matter what, as your foreign policy adviser I urge you to take into consideration the following reasons as to why, in my point of view, utilization of this new weapon should not be allowed. It is absolutely unnecessary, and so might be the invasion. These two are not our only options, and they are certainly not the best ones. Even though Japan has displayed a stubborn resistance, I am confident that this struggle can be ended with less damage and casualties by our diplomats rather than our soldiers. (1) First of all we must assure the Japanese that their emperor Hirohito, who is regarded almost as a god by his people, would not be removed from the throne or tried for war crimes. Of course in truth he will lose most of his power, but that will not matter. I would like to stipulate this point because I fear that if such assurances are not made Japanese will fight till the last man, bomb or no bomb. Secondly, we must dedicate as much as we can to make sure Russia declares war and threatens invasion on Japan as soon as possible. In fact I am almost certain that when presented with a possibility of an attack from the Red Army all responsible leaders will see that surrender is unavoidable. Therefore we must presently focus on two tasks, which combined will give us the desired result. We must assure the Japanese that Hirohito will not be dishonored and we must dedicate all our diplomatic forces to gain Soviet Union's support against Japan. When presented with these two arguments, I believe Japanese will realize that surrender is their better choice. (2) An important aspect of this issue is that of morality. Will we take up the responsibility of killing an estimate of tens of thousands of innocent people, many more later as a result of after effects, men, women, elderly and children? Is it not a crime to kill when it can be avoided even taking into consideration that we are at war? Please excuse my manner as it may seem a little bit inappropriate here, but I feel I must speak freely and honestly. We both know, and everyone knows that Hiroshima has little military targets. If such measures as employing a weapon of this magnitude are unavoidable, which is not the case here to start with; it should first be used on a strictly military target such as a naval base. If that does not produce an adequate result a warning that would allow for the evacuation of civilians should be given before bombing a highly inhabited area such as Hiroshima. Only if that fails should we go proceed to the final step. Without these preliminary steps what we essentially commit is murder. I fail to see the any moral justification of bombing women, children and elderly that were left behind in Hiroshima while most young men left for war. I highly doubt that this particular display of our "big stick" will gain us more respect than blame. (3) Not only should it not be used in those ways, it should also not be used as a first choice method. As I have mentioned before first we