When it comes to this response my teammates and I have different opinions on how to settle this situation. Some of us agreed with how President Harry Truman used the atomic bomb and would follow him in that same direction. But then some of disagreed with President Harry Truman’s decision of dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki due to there could have been a more peaceful way of settling the war. Even though Japan was a very confrontational about the absolute submission, there could have been just as operational, less melodramatic ways to handle the situation instead of bombing them and killing innocent people. Even though it is an extremely hard position to put someone in it was still a decision for him and his fellow comrades to make and would have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives.…show more content… Also, he could have found a less populated island but if he wanted to make a statement to the Japanese he should have bombed a larger city within Japan. Also, if I was President Truman I wouldn’t have threatened the bomb because I would have not gone through with it but since he threatened the Japanese with it, I am sure he was obligated to go through with it. But since Japan chose to overlook the threat I am confident that it was a huge encouragement on his choice to go through with the bombing. In my personal opinion the second bombing, shortly after the first, was cold-blooded due to the second bombing was the final decision and President Truman could have given a little more warning to Japan until they agreed to the unconditional surrender conditions. Like Historian A said, Japan was planning on surrendering before the bombing, it just might have taken some arguments to get them to settle unconditionally, not a
