The decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan on August 1945, remains one of the most debated topics in American history. The morality of the decision has been brought to question by both historians and the general public for many years since (Paulin 3-7). However, even more controversial, is the debate on whether the dropping of the bomb was truly a necessity in the campaign to end the war in the Pacific, and therefore put an end to WWII. In hindsight, it is easier for historians to argue the merits and detriments of having used the atomic bomb. Nonetheless, even when the passage of time has allowed for a better insight into the steps taken to make this decision, the fact remains that although dropping the bomb might have not been the only way of ending the war, it was still arguably the fastest and more efficient way. The most accepted reasoning behind the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was, and still is, the fact that the expedited end of the war saved an estimate of about a quarter of a million American lives (Paulin 13-20). At the time, this was reason enough for the American public to support and celebrate the use of the bomb (Paulin 13-20). The general public was not intimately aware of the actual consequences of using a weapon like this; they only knew that with Germany surrendering in Europe, they hoped for a final resolution to the conflict in the Pacific as well. It is difficult to adopt a wartime mentality, but for the majority of Americans, the atomic bomb as a possible means to end the war was not such a distressing possibility (Paulin 58-68). One of the most difficult facts to assimilate about dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the conscious sacrifice of civilian lives. However, ethical lines had already been sufficiently blurred by the time the bomb was dropped. During WWII, a redefining of military strategies developed in the area of air war (Paulin 58-68). Both in Europe and in the Pacific, a