Hiroshima

What was your topic? Why and how did you choose your topic? This paragraph should also include a statement of your thesis.

Hiroshima was selected because it was a major industrial and military center. This made it a target of strategic significance, as a nuclear attack would cripple the remains of the Japanese fleet. At the same time, a swift blow to Japan might encourage them to surrender versus the US conducting a land invasion. If Japan, could be persuaded to capitulate, this would save 500 thousand American lives and millions of civilians (who will be displaced from the fighting). The successful outcome of the tests and Japan’s negative reactions to peaceful gestures meant that the war will continue. Moreover, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and began invading the Northern islands. This pushed US officials to do something, in order to prevent Russia from dominating Asia. These insights in useful in understanding the choices that were made and the long term effects on various stakeholders (thesis).

How did you research and develop your topic project? What project format did you choose and why?

The research was developed based upon the current situation which is developing with nuclear proliferation. This is challenging, as most people have forget the lingering lessons surrounding Hiroshima. These insights are relevant when it comes to Iran's nuclear program. In this case, the press is missing the long term implications surrounding the crisis. This is because it is mainly focused on energy and who will control various resources. The different commentators who are interviewed are failing to understand the long term implications. They are concerned about geo political events and not the underlying reasons why these challenges are occurring (i.e. energy needs and who will control it). The inability to fully understand these impacts are showing their lack of focus. This is a similar situation which developed at the beginning and end of World War II. To avoid a repeat of the past, requires understanding its lessons and the long term effects on stakeholders.

How does your topic relate to this year’s theme?

The topic is directly connected with the theme by illustrating what happens when natural resources become strained from increased competition. A good example of this occurred after the Munich Agreement prior to the start of World War II. It allowed Nazi Germany to move into Czechoslovakia in order to protect German speaking people. On the surface, this seemed like a huge victory for the world community. However, it only emboldened Hitler and encouraged him to engage in more aggressive behavior in the future. Many critics will argue that this theory is short sided, by failing to underscore the world’s resolve in preventing further challenges. Once this takes place, is the point the aggressor will push even harder. As a result, today’s world makes this kind of theory unrealistic. This is because it fails to account for human nature and the respect despots will have for the ability to use force against them. When they are more fearful about their actions, these individuals / regimes will be careful not become overly aggressive and challenge the status quo. This will force them to follow these guidelines based upon fear and their own self interests. A similar situation is developing with Iran and its nuclear program.

What is the importance of your topic today? How has your topic changed history or life today?

The topic is important, in understanding the long term implications of allowing nuclear technology to be available to rouge states and regimes. This has changed my views on history by providing a better understanding about what is happening from a longer term perspective. It is at this point, when a I have a better appreciation for what is happening by looking at the situation from a historical and contemporary perspective. In the 21st century, there is the possibility of these shortcomings creating more conflicts in the future. Once this takes place, is the point American foreign policy will be crippled from a lack of cooperation and not having a coherent strategy.