Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A Critique

1548 Words4 Pages

Dates That Shall Live In Infamy On August 6th, 1945, American planes flew over the city of Hiroshima in Japan. With them they carried an atomic bomb with a force unlike any previously imagined named “Little Boy”. It was dropped directly on Hiroshima in a necessary act of justice, as the United States likes to call it. Three days later, on August 9th, a second atomic bomb named “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, once again called necessary and just. The destruction brought an end to the war, but was it truly worth it? No, it wasn’t. America’s use of atomic bombs on Japan during World War II was not justified due to the murder of civilians and the American government’s neglect of scientific opinion. The American …show more content…

A survivor of the bombing on Hiroshima named Keiko Murakami shared her story, appropriately entitled “My Hiroshima”. She was eight years old at the time the bombs were dropped. Her father spotted the plane only seconds before the bomb dropped and he managed to get Keiko and her brother into their underground shelter just as the bomb hit. When the emerged from the debris, Keiko saw things no one should have to see, let alone an eight year old little girl. “All the neighboring houses were damaged. There was nothing left standing. We yelled for my mother. Soon the heap of rubbles moved; and she appeared with my baby sister in her arms. Many pieces of glass were stuck all over her body. Her right eyeball was out and drooped around her breast like a lump of blood.” (Murakami, Keiko. My Hiroshima.) That gorey picture is straight out of a horror movie. There is no excuse for causing that cause of trauma to someone. None. Keiko said later in life she was lucky she survived, as she was one mile away from the hypocenter. Several others were not as lucky in any sense of the word. “The initial death count in Hiroshima, set at 42,000–93,000, was based solely on the disposal of bodies, and was thus much too low. Later …show more content…

It is in fact true that Japan was given both of those. The Potsdam Declaration was a call for Japanese surrender from the United States, which states as follows. “We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurance of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.” (Harry S. Truman. Potsdam Declaration.) The Potsdam Declaration was clear in its terms for surrender, and the warning threat is there. It is also true that Japan denied this surrender demand quickly. However, this measly declaration does not justify America’s actions against Japan. First, the terms for surrender were called “unconditional”. That’s never a good start. The terms for surrender should always have flexing room so a compromise can be reached, and it’s easier to convince the enemy both sides shall win in some way at the end. Second, the warning was vague. The way it’s worded leads little to no hint as to what is to come. It can easily be misinterpreted as a bluff, or a simple threat for military invasion. It lacks detail that would have possibly pushed Japan to at the very least think more about their decision, which would lean towards justifying the United State’s actions if Japan still chose to not surrender.

Open Document