I agree with the previous poster about the value of this thesis statement and really like the ideas suggested for further exploration in your essay. At the same time, though, I have two comments I'd like to make:
1. I was taught, too, up through high school that the US's use of two atom bombs actually ended up saving lives by bringing the war to a quick end. I'm not certain now, however, of the truth to that claim. I've never seen a sustained, informed argument. Do most historians really agree on this topic? Maybe consider revising your thesis to say that the bombs may have ended up saving the lives of American citizens; they certainly didn't reduce casualties among the Japanese civilians. I tend to think now that war drives innovations in offensive technologies and that once we have those technologies, we often can't resist the itch to use them. Didn't some famous general want to use atomic bombs again in Korea? And if atomic bombs really are a valid way to end a war quickly, why wasn't he allowed to do so? Simply repeating a claim without evidence isn't making an argument. Your evidence could draw on authority (what do some of the most respected historians today actually say about this topic?) and statistics (how many lives were lost in the two atomic explosions? how many lives might have been lost if the war had continued in a conventional manner?).
2. Your thesis reads well in that it is clear, direct, and confident. Some of the word choices might be improved. Both "utilize" and "usage" are often nothing more than fancy ways of saying "use." Some audiences may prefer the fancier wording, but not everyone does. I would also ask that you reconsider the verbs used in two places, "appears" and "occur":
"While the destructive power of the atomic bomb apperas devastating, its usage in a legitimate war reduces the overall casualties which would occur by utilizing conventional war weapons."
Does the atomic bomb truly have devastating destructive power, or does it just "appear" to? Also, do casualties just "occur," or are they suffered or inflicted? Especially when talking about human lives, it's important for us to think about the words that we use.
My two points sound critical, I know, but I offer them constructively. I think you have a very good thesis statement here.
The link below doesn't provide good documentation, but it does suggest that there is controversy surrounding the popular argument that atomic bombs indeed save lives.
[Update: I'm not a historian and, I readily admit, believe that we should ask hard questions about the stories that we grow up with. Still, I get the sense from a quick review of recent scholarship indexed in the JSTOR database that there is indeed ongoing scholarly debate about the need to use atomic bombs to end WWII.]
No comments:
Post a Comment