American Bombing Raids Over Japan example essay topic

The first amendment to the Constitution contends that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the press". In the past ten years especially, music has been under assault by law makers, prosecutors and critics of morality and taste. One attack on this freedom comes from parental advisory stickers. These stickers are used as a form of censorship against an artist and his or her lyrics.

I feel that if a label will produce an album, there is no reason the consumer cannot decide for him or herself if lyrics contained in the album are found obscene or otherwise unsuitable. In order to begin the debate on whether or not parental advisory stickers serve as a form of censorship, one must consider what the word censor implies. The word censor defined by Webster dictionary means the power to suppress publications or excise any matter in them thought to be immoral, seditious or otherwise undesirables. The question of what constitutes "proper" language and obscenity has been greatly forced upon the music industry. The government oversteps the constitution in concluding on which lyrics are appropriate for children. Legislation on this topic has been in effect since the mid 1950's.

Further legislation was not passed until 1985, when music labeling was voluntarily adopted by the Recording Industry of America. Later in 1990, although each company retained discretion regarding the labeling of specific records, the size, placement and wording of the logo were standardized. The current labeling consists of a black and white logo, fixed to the permanent packaging on the bottom right hand corner. For all the controversy these stickers stir up, does it serve a practical use for protecting the young people of the nation. Parental advisory stickers, voluntary or mandatory, act as a form of censorship because the stickers effect the availability of a sound recording. More and more music stores are restricting the accessibility of works deemed to be offensive to one group of citizens or another.

In 1992 it was announced that Ice T's song "Cop Killer" would not be in future albums, and that all existing albums would be recalled. Consequently, approximately 1,400 stores dropped the album. Many major retailers such as Woolworth's and K-mart will not purchase, and therefore not display, an album with any kind of parental advisory sticker on it. While it is true that legally these labels do not prohibit sales to anyone, the labels "amount to an elegant form of censorship, elegant because it is censorship made to look like consumer information". (1) As controversial as records like Ice T and other artists who use either swears or sexually explicit material are, artistic pieces no matter what kink of message they send, or however unpopular they may be, are still protected by the first amendment to the constitution. The people who vote for and pass the laws prohibiting free speech are taking it upon themselves what they think is moral and right for the rest of the country.

I feel I can make up my own mind about what type of music I listen to, how about you? One organization claiming to protect the children is the Parents Music Resource Center. At the center of the music labeling controversy, the P.M.R.C., "feels that current levels of violence, racism, brutality towards women, drug and alcohol glamorization in music, lyrics, videos and stage shows need to be addressed through public discussion and debate". (2) The P.M.R.C. hopes to prohibit the sale of records to minors that contain lyrics about sex, drugs and alcohol, murder or suicide.

If that were the case, even the bible may be labeled with a parental advisory sticker. With its descriptions about crucifications, stoning's, and other primal methods of punishment. One must also take into consideration that no direct link between exposure to sexually explicit material and antisocial behavior or sexual violence has ever been established or proven. (3) Many organizations have been founded as a counter attack to the Parent's Music Resource Center. One group that works for freedom of expression call themselves, Parents of Rock and Rap. Members include students of all ages, parents, grandparents, college professors and musicians.

No matter what side of the issue you stand for, the issues as of now have to be settled by the consumer. Restricting the purchase of displeasing recordings is censorship. The entire system must be carefully examined, including prior court rulings and decisions on the music industry and the way in which we protect our children from what they see and hear. One must ask if it is constitutionally moral, and then we may begin to change the warning system, so that our guaranteed freedoms do not die.

Personally, I feel that any type of censorship is wrong. However, it does not mean that in does not serve its some purpose in cases. That is up to the individual in hand. ""; 100""; 824""; 1012798816""; 29632""; 9"duck sick""; A-bomb""; The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki marked the end to the world's largest armed conflict. Many debates have surfaced over the ethics of such an attack. The bomb itself caused massive amounts of casualties while the unknown effects of radiation caused many more deaths amongst the survivors of the blast.

Despite the ghastly effects of such a weapon, it offered the best choice for a quick and easy defeat of Japan. President Truman, who authorized the use of the atomic bomb, made a wise decision under the circumstances of the war. The Japanese refusal to surrender, the massive amount of allied casualties involved in invading the Japanese mainland and the ineffectuality of a military blockade in forcing Japan to surrender made the bomb a necessary last resort. There were several conventional methods that were suggested to bring Japan to its knees. These included a naval blockade, an extensive aerial bombardment or an invasion of the island of Japan. Japan posed little or no offensive threat to American forces.

Despite this fact the Japanese were the most tenacious and driven of Americas foes throughout the war. The battles for Okinawa, Wake and Guam all were ample testament to the Japanese willingness to die in the face of overwhelming odds. The kamikaze was a perfect example of the Japanese battle attitude. Japanese pilots would strap themselves into planes laden with explosives and fly them into American ships. By the war's conclusion the Japanese kamikaze attacks had sunk 3 aircraft carriers damaged 285 craft and sunk a total of 34. The Japanese also did well in increasing support for the war effort.

Both scientist and publicists were in fact powerful instruments inflaming popular hatred against the democratic countries and in regimenting the people into blindly supporting the war of aggrandizement. This resolve would only have been strengthened had American and Russian forces tried to invade Japan. This almost suicidal type of fighting would have resulted in a tremendous amount of casualties for both sides. American casualties alone were projected at 500,000. The amount of deaths caused by an invasion would have easily dwarfed those of the atomic bombings. Air power offered American forces a method of remaining relatively unscathed against the fanatical Japanese military while laying waste to entire cities.

This was possible because while Japanese ground forces remained strong, air defenses had been severely weakened. This gave American bombers free reign over the skies of Japan. American bombing raids over Japan were inflicting massive amounts of casualties and causing tremendous damage to Japanese cities. In fact the atomic bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki was not as devastating as conventional bombing raids over Tokyo or to previous bombing raids over European cities, most notably Dresden. In March, 1945, our Air Force had launched the first incendiary raid on the Tokyo area. In this raid more damage was done and more casualties were inflicted than was the case at Hiroshima.

Therefore it is very plausible that had the atomic weapons not been dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki the number of conventional bombings casualties of the continued air raids would have been much greater than those of the atomic bombings. The last credible strategy that would force Japan to surrender would be a naval blockade. This would involve the Navy patrolling the waters around Japan and stopping any supplies from getting through. Japan had sufficient military supplies to fight off an American invasion despite a blockade.

This meant that if the blockade were to be successful the Japanese would have to be starved into surrendering. The Japanese mainland could not produce enough food to sustain its massive population for very long. Had a blockade been attempted, any remaining food supplies would have been allocated to the military forces leaving the civilian population to starve. This would have lead to a massive amount of deaths due to starvation amongst the civilian population.

This strategy would have lead only to the death of civilians and not weakened the Japanese military or brought Japan closer to surrender. President Truman's decision to use atomic weapons on Japanese cities is best described as the lesser of evils. With the options available to him, the atomic bombings proved to have the potential for the least casualties for both sides while ending the war quickly. This policy of maximum violence led to the quick end of the deadlock in Japanese politics. Had such a policy not been used the war could have dragged on for months or perhaps years more with mounting casualties on both sides. The political power of the atomic bomb was unmatched and proved to be the only force that could get the emperor to intervene in Japanese politics and stop the hostilities.

The atom bomb proved to be the ultimate ambassador in a war where conventional politics were futile.