President Trumans decision about dropping the bombs on Japan Essay Example

President Trumans decision about dropping the bombs on Japan Essay Example President Trumans decision about dropping the bombs on Japan Paper President Trumans decision about dropping the bombs on Japan Paper President Trumans decision to drop the bombs on Japan was justified As the twentieth century slowly dawned upon the world, there were many predicaments that lay ahead of the people of the United States; one of which was the Second World War. With the rise of communism and fascism, dictators like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin gained power and threatened the well being of the people by ruling with an iron fist. Although not considered a dictator, Hideki Tojo of Japan also participated in such cruelties by attacking nations without properly declaring war. These leaders and autocratic rules killed thousands and millions of innocent people and embarked on a campaign to rule the entire world. Luckily for the Americans, these totalitarian leaders ruled in the nations of Europe and Asia, not directly affecting the United States. However, on December 7, 1941, as President Roosevelt put it, a date which will live in infamy, Japan’s greed in conquering the world got out of control and affected America. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, killing thousands of people and injuring many more. Although President Roosevelt had knowledge of what will happen if America were to enter the war, he had no choice but to enter the war on behalf of the Allies to avenge the deaths of thousands of Americans. The European campaign for the allies were very largely successful and the only thing left for the Allies to deal with was the Pacific Campaign into Japan. Unfortunately, in the midst of this chaos, President Roosevelt passed away and President Harry Truman was inaugurated into office. During this time, the American government researched and quickly harnessed the world’s most powerful weapon, the Atomic Bomb. Truman knew the consequences of dropping the bombs on Japan and thoroughly examined the positives and negatives of the bomb. In consideration of all this, the positives outweighed the negatives and the bombs were finally dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two cities in Japan. President Truman had every right to drop the bombs on Japan in order to save lives and better America’s future as a world power. The bombs were dropped with a desire to save lives, nothing more and nothing less. The costs would have been innumerable and would have been crippling to the Americans if President Truman didn’t make the decision in dropping the bombs. One of the many costs that the Americans would have to pay would be the significant number of casualties that would have occurred if Americans were to have entered Japan and fight a war face to face. Some may consider the United States to be nothing more than coward for doing this, but it is far better than losing thousands of lives in war. The Japanese began to draft its entire population, including children and women. If the Americans were to have come face to face in combat with these soldiers, America would have suffered great losses; losses that would be impossible to fully recover from. Furthermore, sending troops into Japan and dropping a bomb on Japan is essentially almost the same concept; both are to decimate Japan into rubbles in order for the nation to surrender. So, why not choose the option of dropping bombs in Japan when it is much safer and more efficient than sending troops into Japan? With the attack of Pearl Harbor, Japan and the United States were officially in a state of war between each other. In a state of war, the main focus is to decimate the enemy by any means possible. This meaning, deploying troops into enemy territories creating blockades, and even dropping bombs on the enemy is perfectly legal. President Truman was entirely justified in deciding to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan. In any war, opposing nations killed enemy troops, decimated enemy cities into rubbles, and dropped bombs. Droppings bombs and deploying troops to kill enemy troops are one and the same; both result in the death of many. In any war, the point of war is to win. When it comes to war, the moral thoughts that govern society are not the same morals that govern the military. When in a state of war, the goal is to defeat your enemy, and keep your own men alive, so during the war, the lives of American soldiers were far more important to America than the lives of the Japanese; that was America’s goal- to take Japanese lives. Considering all this, why is it in then in this case that it is so controversial to take the lives of the Japanese population? Japan violated American territories, killed Americans, and caused a number of other problems for the United States; America suffered losses and to prevent further loss, President Truman had every right to make a decision in dropping the bombs over Japan. Considering the consequences of American entry in to the war, the United States closely scrutinized the results of war. President Roosevelt and Truman carefully examined the positives and negatives. In the case of Japan, President Truman believed dropping the bombs on Japan was a definite positive for America. Dropping the bombs on Japan helped better the future of America by preventing a large number of casualties in battles. The only initiative in dropping the bomb is to help quicken the ending of the war and save lives, not to cause pain and agony; thus, making Truman’s decision in dropping the bomb justified. Truman was also justified according to legal international laws. America and Japan were in a state of war and in a state of war, there is only one victor. The point of war is to win and the only way to do so is to decimate the opposing side by any means possible. Deploying troops, creating blockades, and dropping bombs are all one and the same; they all result in death. The reason in deploying troops is to kill enemy troops. The reason in creating a blockade is to block shipment into enemy nations; thus, causing a dearth in goods and food, causing starvation and eventual death. The reason in dropping bombs is to decimate cities into rubbles and demonstrate power. Thus, if all these result in death, why is it so controversial for President Truman to make a decision in bombing Japan? A bomb is a bomb; whether it is an A, B, or C bomb, they are all one and the same. Bombs were made to decimate cities and kill people. In war, saving lives and winning are the top priorities in war. President Truman decided to bomb Japan in order to save lives and to win the war; thus, President Truman was totally justified in making the decision in dropping the bombs.

Example of a Permutation Test

Example of a Permutation Test One question that it is always important to ask in statistics is, â€Å"Is the observed result due to chance alone, or is it statistically significant?† One class of hypothesis tests, called permutation tests, allow us to test this question. The overview and steps of such a test are: We split our subjects into a control and an experimental group.  The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between these two groups.Apply a treatment to the experimental group.Measure the response to the treatmentConsider every possible configuration of the experimental group and the observed response.Calculate a p-value based upon our observed response relative to all of the potential experimental groups. This is an outline of a permutation.  To flesh of this outline, we will spend time looking at a worked out example of such a permutation test in great detail. Example Suppose we are studying mice.  In particular, we are interested in how quickly the mice finish a maze that they have never encountered before.  We wish to provide evidence in favor of an experimental treatment.  The goal is to demonstrate that mice in the treatment group will solve the maze more quickly than untreated mice.   We begin with our subjects: six mice.  For convenience, the mice will be referred to by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F. Three of these mice are to be randomly selected for the experimental treatment, and the other three are put into a control group in which the subjects receive a placebo. We will next randomly choose the order in which the mice are selected to run the maze. The time spent finishing the maze for all of the mice will be noted, and a mean of each group will be computed. Suppose that our random selection has mice A, C, and E in the experimental group, with the other mice in the placebo control group. After the treatment has been implemented, we randomly choose the order for the mice to run through the maze.   The run times for each of the mice are: Mouse A runs the race in 10 secondsMouse B runs the race in 12 secondsMouse C runs the race in 9 secondsMouse D runs the race in 11 secondsMouse E runs the race in 11 secondsMouse F runs the race in 13 seconds. The average time to complete the maze for the mice in the experimental group is 10 seconds. The average time to complete the maze for those in the control group is 12 seconds. We could ask a couple of questions. Is the treatment really the reason for the faster average time? Or were we just lucky in our selection of control and experimental group?  The treatment may have had no effect and we randomly chose the slower mice to receive the placebo and faster mice to receive the treatment.  A permutation test will help to answer these questions. Hypotheses The hypotheses for our permutation test are: The null hypothesis is the statement of no effect.  For this specific test, we have H0: There is no difference between treatment groups.  The mean time to run the maze for all mice with no treatment is the same as the mean time for all mice with the treatment.The alternative hypothesis is what we are trying to establish evidence in favor of. In this case, we would have Ha: The mean time for all mice with the treatment will be faster than the mean time for all mice without the treatment. Permutations There are six mice, and there are three places in the experimental group. This means that the number of possible experimental groups are given by the number of combinations C(6,3) 6!/(3!3!) 20. The remaining individuals would be part of the control group. So there are 20 different ways to randomly choose individuals into our two groups. The assignment of A, C, and E to the experimental group was done randomly.  Since there are 20 such configurations, the specific one with A, C, and E in the experimental group has a probability of 1/20 5% of occurring. We need to determine all 20 configurations of the experimental group of the individuals in our study. Experimental group: A B C and Control group: D E FExperimental group: A B D and Control group: C E FExperimental group: A B E and Control group: C D FExperimental group: A B F and Control group: C D EExperimental group: A C D and Control group: B E FExperimental group: A C E and Control group: B D FExperimental group: A C F and Control group: B D EExperimental group: A D E and Control group: B C FExperimental group: A D F and Control group: B C EExperimental group: A E F and Control group: B C DExperimental group: B C D and Control group: A E FExperimental group: B C E and Control group: A D FExperimental group: B C F and Control group: A D EExperimental group: B D E and Control group: A C FExperimental group: B D F and Control group: A C EExperimental group: B E F and Control group: A C DExperimental group: C D E and Control group: A B FExperimental group: C D F and Control group: A B EExperimental group: C E F and Control group: A B DExperimental group: D E F and Control group: A B C We then look at each configuration of experimental and control groups. We calculate the mean for each of the 20 permutations in the listing above.  For example, for the first, A, B and C have times of 10, 12 and 9, respectively.  The mean of these three numbers is 10.3333.  Also in this first permutation, D, E and F have times of 11, 11 and 13, respectively.  This has an average of 11.6666. After calculating the mean of each group, we calculate the difference between these means. Each of the following corresponds to the difference between the experimental and control groups that were listed above. Placebo - Treatment   1.333333333 secondsPlacebo - Treatment   0 secondsPlacebo - Treatment   0 secondsPlacebo - Treatment -1.333333333 secondsPlacebo - Treatment 2 secondsPlacebo - Treatment 2 secondsPlacebo - Treatment 0.666666667 secondsPlacebo - Treatment 0.666666667 secondsPlacebo - Treatment -0.666666667 secondsPlacebo - Treatment -0.666666667 secondsPlacebo - Treatment 0.666666667 secondsPlacebo - Treatment   0.666666667 secondsPlacebo - Treatment -0.666666667 secondsPlacebo - Treatment -0.666666667 secondsPlacebo - Treatment -2 secondsPlacebo - Treatment -2 secondsPlacebo - Treatment 1.333333333 secondsPlacebo - Treatment 0 secondsPlacebo - Treatment 0 secondsPlacebo - Treatment -1.333333333 seconds P-Value Now we rank the differences between the means from each group that we noted above. We also tabulate the percentage of our 20 different configurations that are represented by each difference in means. For example, four of the 20 had no difference between the means of the control and treatment groups. This accounts for 20% of the 20 configurations noted above. -2 for 10%-1.33 for 10 %-0.667 for 20%0 for 20 %0.667 for 20%1.33 for 10%2 for 10%. Here we compare this listing to our observed result. Our random selection of mice for the treatment and control groups resulted in an average difference of 2 seconds. We also see that this difference corresponds to 10% of all possible samples.  The result is that for this study we have a p-value of 10%.