Mass Media And The Public Opinion Problem Media Essay

Mass Media And The Public Opinion Problem Media Essay The war on Iraq is drawing to a close, but over the last six years, it has eclipsed the news agenda. Ever since the Gulf war ended in 1991, the United states and Britain have been waging an undeclared secret war on Iraq for twelve years1. The US led war in Iraq began in March 2003. Their intent was to abolish the Iraqi society allowing them to command Iraqs huge oil reserves. This war received unparalleled media coverage on television and in the press. News networks spent significant amounts of money in situating reporters and photographers in Iraq. These reporters spent time with the coalition armed forces on the front line where they were able to provide live coverage of events as they happened. A number of consequences followed. Watchdog groups raised issues about the sheer quantity of war coverage, the nature of that coverage and the independence and objectivity of those so-called embedded journalists2. Clearly, it became important to know not only what the public felt about the actual war, but also how the public received information and formed their opinion about the war. Radio had World War II. Television had the Vietnam War. Cable TV had the Gulf War. Now, the Internet may have the U.S. war with Iraq3. In this modern day war, reporters with laptops and digital cameras reported directly from battlefields. Cameras were placed at key locations for live online feeds 24 hours a day. Interactive, 3-D maps updated online graphs of troop movements, casualties and weapons used4. The Internet is capable of providing so much more, with unregulated and unbiased reports/opinions of the war. It is also capable of connecting people with like minded opinions for discourse. Coupled with other semiotic advantages of the web (instant, cost-effective), the information explosion of the Internet has led to a worldwide crises in the television industry. This crisis is responsible for transforming the creation, distribution and consumption of content. As audiences make a move from television to the Internet (for unbiased war coverage), the television industry has struggled to keep up with new technologies, to reinvent itself, to formulate new formats, to find consumers on new platforms, to cut costs and create new business models such as providing free online access to shows on their networks. This shift in mass audience attention from television to the Internet will have a large impact on the media landscape. Youre combining the speed of television with the depth of print, says Mitch Gelman, executive producer of CNN.com. This could define how [the] future [is] covered. 5 Research Question Does the explosion in Internet media further diversify and fragment the media landscape, reducing the influence of biased media on public opinion? Thesis Statement Even though the Internet is a privilege that is enjoyed only in first world countries and television and radio is still the primary source of information in most developing nations, an apparent bias in television news media has led audiences to seek more objective information from the world wide web because television news is filled with selective viewpoints while the interactivity, diversity and information capacity available on the Internet has the potential to allow the public to form a more knowledgeable opinion about politics and their government. Significance The significance of Internet news, forums and online political discussions as an information source is the ability to diversify the type of news people receive, and improve their ability to check the actions of elected officials. As opposed to news coverage on television which, filled with reports of vague truths, incomplete facts, inaccurate rumors and selective viewpoints, is determined to sell the war. Thus people are turning to online news sources in great numbers, to get a more balanced, objective and realistic perspective. Television and the Internet are pulling in opposite directions, and hence this study is important to understand this growing trend. Hypothesis This research paper claims the theory of a shift of audience attention in an information era that now includes new un-monopolized and un-biased media sources such as the Internet and hence a shift to a more diversified public opinion. This paper will bring forward the relationship between media usage and support or opposition to the Iraq war. The claims put forth in this paper will be based on the Pew Internet American Life Project Iraq War survey, March 20-25, 2003. Purpose The purpose of this research is to show that public opinion is directly dependent upon what source they get their news information from. The round-the-clock convenience of the Internet and the centralization of un-regulated and un-biased information on the web can cut information costs for citizens while still providing ample political and government information6. Thus the goal of this paper is to show that television media does not continue to exert an effect on public opinion as the impact of the Internet has made opinion more diverse leading to a crises in the television news industry. Statement of scope and limitations The scope of this research is to show how the US television media have altered facts, reported several inaccurate stories and never acknowledged that this has been more of an invasion than a war. As a result of this apparent bias in television news media, audiences are seeking more objective information from the world wide web. This paper will not cover how the Internet is a privilege that is enjoyed only in first world countries and television and radio is still the primary source of information, shaping public opinion, in these developing nations. Also, this paper will not cover how most television shows are streamed illegally online and has led to a decline in network revenue. Outline of argument Television media coverage of news events is part of the free-market system in the U.S. where a number of elite groups can influence the type of coverage given to an issue and who gets heard7. This becomes a troubling factor in the case of news covering foreign affairs because the public has fewer sources of information to compare against. This has increased the importance of the Internet as a news source. As the television media is becoming concentrated in the hands of a few, it heightens the possibility that the public will have trouble getting both sides of a report. So far, the Internet has resisted the trend toward a singular message. Opposing viewpoints and information not available from other news sources flourish on the Web. For example, a 2003 Pew Internet and American Life survey found that the majority of respondents reported using the Internet for political news because of convenience and dissatisfaction with television media8. Literature Review about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. This has happened since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack, the figure was about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed to raise that to about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support the war. Noam Chomsky, Iraq is a trial run9 Introduction To explore the influence of both the Internet and the consolidation of television media on public opinion, this paper uses data and statistical analysis from surveys done by Pew Internet and American Life project entitled The Internet And The Iraq War. These surveys are consistent with other writers such as Herman and Chomsky (Manufacturing consent and Iraq Is A Trial Run), Shapiro and Dempsey (What moves public opinion) and Macye and Steven (Embedding The Truth) among others also mentioned in this research paper. Even though some of the articles mentioned in this paper were published before the Iraq war, their detailed analysis of the effect of media on the public opinion still has modern day ramifications for this growing shift from television to the Internet. Hence the survey data along with several consistent articles in this research paper tests the theory of media influence on public opinion in a digital age that now includes new forms of media such as the Internet, as well as increased biassnes of the television industry. An inherent bias Experts have long agreed that news coverage has a very overwhelming influence on public opinion. Analyzing surveys and polls of public opinion on issues regarding the Iraq war, Page, Shapiro and Dempsey (1987) find that change in public opinion is attributable to the source of news media forming the opinion. Public opinion towards the Iraq war in 2003 provides a case study under very unusual circumstances than other wars. Radio had World War II. Television had the Vietnam War. Cable TV had the Gulf War. Now, the Internet may have the U.S. war with Iraq10. Under these very different circumstances of newer technology, Page et al have found that, we might expect media coverage of the war to have a direct effect on public opinion. Among experts arguing that news media are systematically biased, no other has been as influential as Herman and Chomsky. In Manufacturing Consent, they advanced a propaganda model that suggests that the societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state11 (298). While trying to shed light on the relationship between politics and media, this work is often taken as evidence of a biassnes in the news media. Using multivariate logistic regression, surveys done by Pew Internet American Life Project in 2003, which seem to agree with the Herman and Chomskys analysis, found that television media coverage of the Iraq war shaped public opinion. Respondents who watched cable or network television as a primary source of news about the war, about thirty million Americans, were statistically more likely to support the Iraq war. But, respondents who read online war news were significantly less likely to support the war13. The Internet has become a rich repository for satirical and subversive alternate visions. With the US campaign against Iraq, a unique form of resistance is emerging: not so much on the streets as through the electronic networks of the Internet.14 A former reporter turned media critic Bernard Goldberg writes, There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, Im more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply dont trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other media elites have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that its hardly worth discussing anymore.15 Shanto Iyengar, in The Accessibility Bias In Politics, argues that when the networks make a certain event more accessible by giving it extensive coverage, viewers automatically give that issue greater importance and use their opinions concerning that issue to a greater range when thinking about their country at war. During the Iraq war coverage individuals were fed a steady diet yellow journalism.16 Yellow journalism, such as images of blown up military vehicles and downed helicopters, capture the attention of an audience much more than pictures of everyday mundane events. The practice of looking for the next big event, whether it comes from a suicide bomber or from an ambush on coalition troops, convinces Americans to believe that the war is far from over. Television news programs have sensationalized the war and discarded objectivity in favor of their own opinion of the conflict. A reporter for the International Herald Tribune, Michiko Kakutani observed, Network producers have turn ed real-time reporting of the 2003 war in Iraq into prime time reality TV entertainment. Rather than presenting the real horror of war.17 Shift to the Internet In three different polls, an aggregate sample of three thousand respondents was asked, Where do you tend to get most of your news? The options offered were newspapers and magazines or TV and radio. Overall, nineteen percent said their primary news source was print media, while eighty percent said it was electronic18. These results are consistent with the findings of Kull and Ramsay, in Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War, who mention that traditional news sources are to blame for misperceptions regarding the reasons to invade Iraq. People who depend on the Internet as their main news source, who tend to be younger and better educated than rest of the public and is roughly 68 percent of the American population, expressed unfavorable and analytical opinions of traditional news sources and press performance19. These audiences, about 6 out of 10,also say that news organizations do not care about the people they report on, and fifty three percent, of that number, believe that news organizations are too critical of America20. In the 2003 surveys these respondents mentioned they got news of the Iraq war from the web because you dont get all the news and information you want from traditional new sources such as the daily news paper or the network TV news.21 They also said getting information online is more convenient22 The Internet strips away one of the most despicable beliefs of journalism the ridiculous idea that journalists are fair-minded truth seekers out for nothing more than a good story.23 Due to Internet journalism -which has broken the monopoly of the status quo-, Mark Poster, in The Second Media Age, says we are shifting back towards an era of open discourse, much similar to the old days when various newspapers with various political connections, competed for the publics attention.24 He goes on to explain that the interactivity, diversity, flexibility, and information capacity available on the Internet have the capability to allow the public to become more knowledgeable about politics and government. Its hard to be unbiased Over the last six years of the Iraq war coverage, we have become used to watching journalists report from battlefields. These embedded journalists live, sleep, eat and face danger with the troops. Spending so much time with them, the journalists get to know the troops as individuals. Hence the reports are humanised. But these much praised reports of war overlook the fact that these embeds are embedded with one side only. This in no way is a balanced perspective25. A very pessimistic John Simpson of the BBC says: I dont want to spend my whole time with people to whom I owe my safety, my protection, my food, my transport, and then be expected to be completely honest about them, because theres always that sense that youre betraying a trust.26 In todays style of non stop news coverage, it is very hard for a report to be unbiased. News programs today are made to grasp the attention of hyperactive and impatient audience (since there are other channels to choose from). Usually, every television news report is told in less than two minutes. This results in a great loss of detail, and thats where the TV reporters personal bias comes into play: he or she decides what parts of a story to include or omit. As many people have pointed out, broadcast news is dangerous, not because of whats reported, but because of what is not reported. Fortunately the Internet is becoming a more reliable source of daily news, and it helps fill in the gaps. Anyone looking for current news, can gather more information in five minutes on the Internet than they can get in an hour of watching television. Conclusion The television media culture has become arrogant, often ignorant and mindless, but not quite so dominant as it used to be. Specifically, television news is no the same anymore. The Internet, with its hundreds of news sources, some professional reports and many others not so professional, is doing to television news what television news did to newspapers a generation ago, steadily stealing its audience. Methodology see >> http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sociology/notes06/Level4/SO4530/Assigned-Readings/Seminar%2011.2.pdf Bibliography/Footnotes 1.(see John Pilgers The Secret War on Iraq). 2. The Media Workers Against the War and the Indymedia network media War coverage. wiki 3. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-03-18-iraq-internet_x.htm 4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2889171.stm 5. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-3-2003_pg6_1 6. http://prq.sagepub.com/content/56/2/175.short 7. http://search2.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/ids70/view_record.php?id=7recnum=2log=from_resSID=986263f7ea97c6532362216a8e2aee36mark_id=search:7:76,0,4 8. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2003/PIP_Iraq_War_Report.pdf.pdf 9. http://www.zcommunications.org/iraq-is-a-trial-run-by-noam-chomsky 10. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-03-18-iraq-internet_x.htm 11. Manufacturing Consent 12. http://www.media-studies.ca/articles/war_propaganda.htm 13. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2003/PIP_Iraq_War_Report.pdf.pdf 14. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/dwhayes/iraq_mpsa08.pdf 15. http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0895261901 16. http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/2/1/1.pdf [oxford journals] >> http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/2/1/1.pdf 17. Michiko Kakutani. The Ultimate Reality TV Show: Coverage on the War in Iraq. At Issue: Reality TV. Ed. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. August 2004. 25 July 2010. . 18. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2003/PIP_Iraq_War_Report.pdf.pdf 19. Lbid, page 20.lbid 21.lbid 22. lbid 23. http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut34.html 24. http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/9541_011389ch01.pdf 25. see downloads dooley 26. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/15/john-simpson-bbc-murdoch-journalism -http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/embedded-war-reporting-iraq-afghanistn

Target Corporation’s Supply Chain Management

Target Corporation Supply Chain Assignment Target’s Supply Chain Unit 2 Assignment GB570 Managing the Value Chain Dr. Rita Gunzelman Kaplan University December 12, 2011 Target’s Supply Chain The purpose of this paper is to show evidence of cohesive knowledge of the supply chain and how it works by the exploration of Target Corporation’s supply chain.Target, one of the nations largest retail chains, first opened in 1962 in Minnesota as key leadership were looking for new ways to move from a family-run (The Dayton Family) department store to a mass market national chain strengthening customer relationships by appealing to value-oriented shoppers in quest of a higher-quality experience. Today, Target operates approximately 1750 stores (including nearly 240 SuperTarget stores) in 49 states with Gregg Steinhafel as their CEO. We will review the effectiveness of Target’s supply chain and analyze if it meets the necessary expectations of their demand chain. Targe t, 2011) Overview of Target’s Supply Chain Target, the 2nd largest discount-retailer in the U. S. has focused on their slogan, â€Å"Expect More Pay Less† and strategizes to increase optimal value and growth for global networking, an exclusive upscale and trendy product line, and value added service that creates a distinctive niche throughout the world. This multi-billion dollar company set out to change how consumers thought about discount shopping by offering a more upscale shopping experience.In 1998, Target purchased Associated Merchandising Corporation (AMC) as part of the development of their global service network in efforts to offer products at more competitive prices and survive one of their biggest competitors, Walmart. Target and its founders have always focused on constantly reducing costs, improving sales, adopting efficient and competent distribution and logistics management systems while using sophisticated and cutting-edge information technology (IT) sy stems—thus creating the makings for an efficient supply chain management system.Components of Target’s supply chain that will be evaluated include product and service specs, order processing and management, evaluation of delivery options, procurement, inventory management, processing/manufacturing, and transportation (Target, 2011; Walters and Rainbird, 2007). Product and Service Specification Target believes in a differentiated approach to set them apart from their direct competitors and provide products and services based on what their customer needs and wants.They begin by offering customers a more upscale shopping experience that makes shopping easier in stores that are always clean and attractive with more trend-forward merchandising at lower costs. For added value and convenience for the customers the development of new store prototypes birthed where they are offering more than just a general merchandise store with pharmacy, photo processing center, Food Avenue r estaurants, but a grocery store with fresh produce and quality food items, Target. om website, an optical department, their own credit card, more exclusive deals with various name brands and designers, and sell more gift cards than any other retailer in the country. Also, unlike Walmart, Target does not sell firearms (real or toy firearms that look real) or tobacco products. As well, Target does not promote services or items on their public address system or use music in its stores.All of this, with a highly contemporary design, signage, and graphics enhances the attractiveness and appeal of the store along with knowledgeable and well-dressed employees (who are referred to as Team Members) attract a different type of customer or â€Å"Guests† than that of Target’s direct competitors. Target tends to attract a younger, affluent, educated, and fashion-forward customer. Order Processing and Management To further deliver on Target’s Brand Promise and optimize their supply chain network, leveraging cutting-edge logistics technologies to drive service and meet the needs of the guests cost-effectively and efficiently is critical.With great leadership and effective management, Target prepares, plans, and delivers the guests what they want, where they want it, and when they want it (whether customer purchases online or in store) via analyzing, developing, and implementing successful supply chain strategies and initiatives. This is done by coordinating activities from Finance, Merchandising, Distribution, transportation, and stores. Senior leadership will be addressed with additional opportunities, alternative solutions, and anticipated benefits via the internal systems, company infrastructure, and streamlining.Value Delivery Options In efforts to enable Target to deliver more value to their customers and shareholders, Target, a Partners Online Website is utilized as a vehicle to communicate to Target’s Partners business- critical information that ultimately elevate performance, speed, and accuracy while maximizing profitability within the supply chain. Due to the ability of cutting expenses, Target provides customers with high-quality merchandise at low margins.In addition, with over 1700 stores globally and more than 300,000 employees, Target offers continued customer relations improvement and greater guest experiences through their product life-cycle whether receiving assistance in stores or online. (Target, 2011; Walters and Rainbird, 2007) Procurement Target takes seriously the need to provide efficiency and opportunity in this area with the use of internal consultants who ensures performance improvements of safety and quality, driving service, and strong financials.For example, due to the high costs of fuel in today’s challenging economy, Target and their Logistics Management Team across the country to re-calculate and strategize the impact and develop alternatives to continue low costs that are passed on t o their customers. As a result, Target will keep goods moving on the cheapest forms of transportation whether via all-water, railroad, or transload methods for as long as possible to minimize exposure to high-fuel expenses (Target, 2011; Tirschwell, 2008). Inventory ManagementTarget has developed and caters to the needs of each individual store through their sophisticated technology and Online IT systems. In-stock improvements are supported for efficiency, speed, and profitability with excellent tracking and communication systems (Target, 2011). Processing Target focuses on continued improvements of their customer’s product life-cycle starting at set-up to the delivery of the product by managing process improvements, organizational support, consistent measurement, and technology updates.This global focus helps the Distribution Centers maintain the grounds, equipment and systems, and buildings as well as as providing the leadership and facility operations processes it requires . Transportation To ensure Target meets the needs of their guests effectively and cost efficiently, they manage their overall supply chain to provide the fastest and shortest routes and create a team that has a direct and vital connection between internal purchasing, distribution centers and stores, and their import warehouses. Assessment of Supply Chain EfficiencyMy assessment of the efficiency of Target’s supply chain based upon your review above and the reference materials provided in this unit is that Target has a very effective supply chain. They provide a high value proposition as it pertains to their products, suppliers, distribution, and manufacturing and service systems. The focus of value, quality, cost reduction, network optimization, and profitability was delivered in a cost and time efficient manner and re-strategized their plan if it did not. (Target, 2011; Walters and Rainbird, 2007). Relationship of Supply Chain to Demand ChainI believe Target’s supply chain successfully supports its demand chain. Target focuses on their customer’s needs and wants and let their market knowledge determine working relationships with suppliers, employees, and customers. Therefore, the focus is primarily on customers and product service and offering, exclusivity, quality, and affordability while increasing performance and adding value. This differentiation is an integral factor in seeking a competitive advantage. Target provides efficiency in their processes to ensure customer satisfaction by having state of the art technology that’s fast and efficient.Target supports partnership and flexibility in efforts to foster growth and sustainability. Target has great customer relations management as well supplier relationship management, which overlaps and makes for a more efficient and effective management (Target, 2011; Walters and Rainbird, 2007). Conclusion Target’s supply chain management practices effectively met the needs of their demand chain. This resulted in increased efficiency in customer value, offering of quality products and services, and optimal effectiveness in operations and customer service.The use of excellent strategies with customer and value focus will ensure Target will continue to create sustainable competitive advantage that separates it from the evident competitive activities of their direct competitor. This will guarantee Target has a strong market position, increased profitability, and contribute to their ongoing success. References Misra, H. , & Choudhary, K. (2010). Opportunities and challenges for ICT mediated innovations in a development oriented value chain: The case of Jaipur Rugs Company.Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management, 7(2), 21-48. Target. (2011). Retrieved on December 13, 2011 from http://sites. target. com/site/en/company/page. jsp? contentId=WCMP04-031316. Tirschwell, P. (2008). The Journal of Commerce: Target reconsiders supply-chain strategy. Retrieved on December 13, 2011 from http://www. ittc. com/uploadedfiles/News/07_14_08_target_reconsiders_supply_strategy. pdf. Walters, D. , & Rainbird, M. (2007). Strategic operations: A value chain approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

American Christians Essay

On August 6 and August 9, 1945, the world saw the first and only usage of atomic weaponry in the history of the world. President Truman said that his decision to use the bomb was for the chief purpose of ending WWII, the deadliest war in human history, as quickly as possible. Multiple warnings were given to Japan about this new weapon in the hope that they would surrender. Japan did not heed these warnings before or even after the dropping of the first bomb on the city of Hiroshima. An invasion of Japan, which was planned for the spring of 1946, would cost an estimated 500,000 American lives and in the event of such an invasion, it was learned that plans dated August 1944, for the murder of more than 100,000 Allied POWs would be carried out. (Goodwin, 2003 pg. 338) However, the major scientists of the day who worked on the project as well as the chief Allied commanders in the field, believed that the use of the bomb was unnecessary as Japan was planning to surrender in the immediate future without the influence of the bomb and that further usage of atomic bombs, was not only unnecessary but immoral and constituted a war crime as it was a crime against humanity. The atomic bomb started with the Manhattan Project. This was the name given to the highly classified, top secret project in order to beat the Germans to have the first atomic bomb in the history of the world. The project was initially started by refugee European scientists, most notably, Albert Einstein, who in a letter to President Roosevelt in the spring of 1939, warned that the Germans were aggressively seeking out the use of such a bomb and that the atomic age, whether the world liked it or not, was upon us and it would behoove the United States if they were the first ones with this technology and not the Axis powers. This letter sparked what would become the largest and most costly development research project of its time. During World War II, the number of American deaths would exceed 400,000. This was nothing in comparison to the more than the seventeen million deaths that were suffered by the Soviet Union; America’s contentious ally. This resulted in the aggressive pursuit of the war in which any means necessary would be used in order to end the war as quickly as possible and decrease the number of American deaths. It was also necessary that the Manhattan Project be kept top secret. The project was so top secret that Vice President Harry Truman did not know of its plans until he secured the White House at the death of President Roosevelt in April of 1945. Only then did President Truman learn and then approve the further testing and continuation of the plan. The atomic bomb was World War II version of chemical warfare, except that it was on a much larger scale. Therefore, a greater degree of responsibility must be attached to its possible use in war. As a result, President Truman commissioned a group of prominent citizens and respected scientists to advise the President on the possible use of the atomic bomb. U. S. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, concluded the report by saying: â€Å"Our great task is to bring this war to a prompt and successful conclusion. †(Lamplier 2006) However, there were other thoughts on the subject. Robert Oppenheimer said that the bomb could kill 20,000 people and that the target should be a military and not a civilian target. Furthermore, Dr. Arthur Compton, a scientist, argued that the bomb should be dropped in a remote area of Japan where there was known to be a sparse population so that minimal life would be lost but that Japan could see first hand, the destruction of the bomb and be prompted to surrender. This suggestion was soon dismissed as it would be disadvantageous if Japan was prompted of the attack before it happened and the plane would be shot down or if the bomb was dropped and did not detonate, this would be a major problem as future attempts to warn the Japanese would fall on unbelieving ears. Also, there was a real possibility that the bomb would not work as this was a new invention with only one test explosion under its belt. â€Å"In July of 1945, President Truman reexamined the use of the bomb and in the end, agreed that the best thing to do, in order to bring a prompt end to the war, would be to utilize the bomb’s destructive force and appeal for intimidation in order to bring the war to an end. † (McCullough, 2005 pg. 188) The stage was set for the world’s only use of this new and terrible weapon. On July 26, 1945 President Truman and other Allied leaders outlined their conditions for surrender in what would be called the Potsdam Declaration. It said: â€Å"The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forced and just as inevitably, the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland†¦ We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forced, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction. † (Rhodes, 1985 pg. 129) This message would be rebroadcast over Japanese radio as well as printed on thousands of leaflets that were dropped over Japan. This did not yield the response that the Allied Forces had hoped for and it was ignored. Emperor Hirohito was yet to receive word that the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan, or were ever going to and therefore, did not feel the necessity to accept the possibility of surrender. The bombings would have to continue as planned. Upon waiting for ideal weather temperatures, a B-29 named the Enola Gay after one of the pilot’s mother, set off for their target of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Six hours after the flight began, the B-29 and its captain, Paul Tibbits, came upon their target and the bomb, nicknamed ‘Little Boy† for the shape of the bomb was dropped on the unsuspecting city. The bomb contained over 130 pounds of the highly explosive uranium-235 and even though only 1% of that would be efficiently used in the drop, the bomb performed as expected. (Meyers, 2001 pg. 77) The bomb detonated 600 meters above the ground and had a blast equal to 13 kilotons in which 90,000 people were instantly killed. It is also likely that hundreds of Allied Prisoners of War and 2,000 Japanese Americans present before the war in which they were attending school overseas and were unable to leave once the war broke out, died in the blast as well. Also, the number of deaths needs to be grouped into two main categories: those that died at the initial blast and those that lingered in agony for days or even weeks before the succumbed to the high levels of radiation that they had been exposed to as a result of the blast. 90% of the buildings in Hiroshima were leveled to the ground and fires which stretched for 11 square miles were also seen as a result of the bombing. (Nichols, 1985. 229) A new and most lethal weapon had been unleashed for the first time upon a city. The destruction was complete but was still not enough to compel Japan to surrender. Plans for a second atomic bomb had been already planned for, in the event that it would be needed. Plans were now made for the usage of this second bomb and its dropping over Nagasaki. Despite the total destruction of the bomb, a second one was needed as the first did not compel Japan to surrender. President Truman declared: â€Å"If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth. † (McCullough, 2005 pg. 219) On August 8th, 1945, thousands of additional leaflets were dropped and warnings were given to Japan. As a result of Japan’s refusal to surrender, a second bomb was dropped over the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. This bombing included more than 14 lbs of plutonium 239 and which exploded more than 430 meters above the ground. This cased winds of more than 600 mph and had the power of 21 kilotons of TNT. The estimated heat that the bomb caused was more than 7000 F and an estimated 80,000 people were killed with another 60,000 injured; many of whom would die from their injuries in the coming weeks and months. (Lamplier, 2006) There still was no sign of Japan’s surrender and the United States planned for more bombings. The debate over America’s use of the atomic bomb has increased as the years continued. There is a great deal of evidence, both for and against the use of the atomic bomb. It was later learned by the public, that a mass invasion of Japan was scheduled in March of 1946 in a final attempt to end the war. There is no way of being able to accurately calculate the number of casualties but one estimate from Secretary of State James Byrnes, believed that 500,000 American lives would be lost as well as hundred of thousands Japanese lives as well if an invasion were to occur. (Lamplier, 2006) An initial wave of American forces, it was estimated, would yield close to 100,000 deaths and with future waves of invasion forces, three to four times that number would be seen it was generally believed. Also, there has been a political stalemate within Japan between the military and the civilian forces over the possibility of surrender. The civilian forces had been seeking a way in which to obtain a favorable and honorable surrender but this was seen as out of the question among the military generals. Also, after the war, it was learned that plans by Japanese forces to murder more than 100,000 Allied POWs, if an invasion were to occur, helped the cause of justifying the use of the atomic bomb in order to avoid an invasion and end the war as quickly as possible, thus saving hundreds of thousands of American lives as well as Japanese lives in the process. However, there has been in the decades after the war, an increasing number of detractors who have said that the usage of the atomic bomb was unnecessary and that more peaceful measures could have been used in order to bring the war to a close. One of the scientists, Leo Szilard, wrote to President Roosevelt in 1939, about the morality of the bomb. It seemed as a paradox that many of the scientists, who worked on the Manhattan project, did not advocate the usage of the bomb. In the letter, it was believed that had Germany used the bomb of the United States, the US would almost certainly decry this action as being representative of war crimes. Therefore, the same would have to be believed had America dropped such a bomb on their enemies. The letter reads as such: â€Å"Suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of the atomic bombs on cities as war crimes, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them? † (Goodwin, 2003 pg. 225) However such beliefs have now come under intense scrutiny as to date, the droppings of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki still stand as the world’s only use of atomic weaponry upon the world. There were further scientific detractors from the use of the bomb. In March 1945, scientist Dr. James Franck questioned the use of the bomb in relation to public opinion towards the United States on a world wide basis. â€Å"If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons. † (Meyers 2001 pg. 227) Further backlash against the use of the bomb was seen by the Federal Council of Churches in March 1946 in which a joint statement read: â€Å"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. † However, at that time, there were no implications against President Truman concerning possible political motivations until after he had left office in 1953. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, believed that the President was politically motivated in his use of the bombs. â€Å"He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species. It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity† The usage of the atomic bombs, resulted in many believing that the world, as the result of American usage of the bombs, had pushed the world to the point of no return in the usage of atomic weaponry. â€Å" (Goodwin, 2005 pg. 255) It was then implied that the United States was motivated by the desire to scare the Soviet Union with their new invention. Ever since the meting at Yalta in which President Roosevelt, Joseph Stain and Winston Churchill met in order to carve out a post war Europe and what the future of the world would represent, there had been a tremendous amount of suspicion towards the Soviet Union and their communist ideas. At the Yalta Conference, President Roosevelt erroneously believed that he and the United States could keep the Soviet Union in check. This was an assumption which proved to be incorrect to an alarming degree, the closer the Allies got to realizing victory in World War II. By the summer of 1945, it was obvious to all, that the end of WWII would only signal the beginning of a new war between the Soviet Union and the United States. At that time, nobody knew how that war would end as the Soviet Union, despite their heavy losses in WWII, was an even match with the United States. The only thing which the United States had was the atomic bomb and it could not have been seen than in only four short years after the end of the war, The Soviet Union would have an atomic bomb of their own. This further increased the number of detractors of the use of the atomic bomb and its suspected use towards intimidating the Soviet Union with its use on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, two of the most famous and powerful American generals during the war, Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, both disagreed with the use of the bomb. Eisenhower, in his memoir The White House Years, commented on the use of the bomb. â€Å"During the recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him (Secretary of War Stinson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that our dropping of the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking the world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. † (Eisenhower, 2003 pg 77) Eisenhower was not alone. Other generals also believed that the dropping of the bomb was unnecessary. Douglas MacArthur, who publicly hated Truman said that he thought that such an event was unnecessary and later said: â€Å"Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bomb had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. † (Tarver, 2004) Also, by President Truman not dropping the bomb when he had the chance to, upon the American public learning of this, would have sealed Truman’s political future as well as the political future of the Democratic Party for years to come, regardless of an Allied victory soon after August 1945. The American public had endured three and a half years of a deadly war, not seen in measure since the Civil War and the American public had been largely in favor of the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo which yielded comparable numbers of deaths as it was believed that such bombings would end the war quicker. When President Truman said that his motivation for use of the bomb was to end the war as quickly as possible, he echoed the prevailing opinion of the American public. In the decades since the end of the war, there has been new information which has both led to a further belief in the correctness and the immorality of the usage of the bomb. The suggestion to drop the bomb in a desolate area of Japan would have been a proper compromise between the two prevailing schools of thought. The bomb would have been dropped and a successful display of this new invention and its destructive power would be achieved with minimal loss of life. This did not occur and only President Truman, as it was he who had the final power to drop the bomb, knew what his real motivations were in what still is, the world’s only usage of the atomic bomb upon its citizens. WORKS CITED Goodwin, D. (2003). No Ordinary Time. New York: Simon & Schuster Eisenhower, D. (1998). The White House Years. New York: Scribners Lamplier: J. (2006) FDR. Boston: PBS Productions. Manchester, W. (1987) The Last Lion: Alone . New York: Simon & Schuster. McCullough. D. (2005). Truman. New York: Scribners. Meyers, J. (2001). Fat Man & Little Boy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Murrow, E. (1991). Revisiting Los Alamos See It Now. New York: CBS Productions Nichols. H. (1985) The Manhattan Project Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1985 Rhodes, R. (1985) Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. New York: Simon and Schuster Tarver, M. (2004) Douglas MacArthur Boston: American Experience PBS Productions

Grand Canyon Jus 505 All Week Discussions - Latest 2015

Grand Canyon JUS 505 All Week Discussions - Latest 2015 iF You Want To Purchase A+ Work then Click The Link Below For Instant Down Load http://www.hwspeed.com/Grand-Canyon-JUS-505-All-Week-Discussions-Latest-2015-58650965065.htm?categoryId=-1 IF You Face Any Problem Then E Mail Us At JOHNMATE1122@GMAIL.COM week 1 Max Points: 5.0 Research and read the Supreme Court case Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261 (1971). Analyze why, even though the Supreme Court had ruled that plea bargaining was an essential and desirable part of the criminal justice system, the Attorney General of Alaska, Avrum Gross, ordered an end to all plea bargaining in 1975. Do you agree with the Attorney General’s decision? Explain your position.†¦show more content†¦Which side do you agree with? Explain why. Also, find at least one additional scholarly source that discusses the impact of supermax prisons on the criminal justice system. Discuss how supermax prisons have impacted criminal justice for good or bad. Discuss the legal ethics involved in administratively transferring an inmate to a supermax prison. week 5 Discuss whether the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 after a 4-year hiatus did or did not result in an empirically verified deterrent. Explain if you are in favor of or against the death penalty. Support your position What would be the pros and cons of abolishing the death penalty? Support your answer with specifics. week 6 Does parens patriae truly still exist under the current U.S. juvenile justice system? Explain why you feel the way you do. Give examples to support your claims. Max Points: 5.0 In Georgia, a 13-year-old individual who commits a felony with a gun is automatically waived to adult criminal court and is likely to receive a long sentence in an adult prison. How is such a policy consistent with the American concept of justice? Support your answer with examples. week 7 Max Points: 5.0 After watching The Politics of Addiction, answer the following questions: What part of the video did you agree with or disagree with most? Do you feel the War on Drugs is worth the costs? This video was