Justification of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings The moral and military necessity of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has been a subject of debate for almost half a century. Most revisionists emphasize the victimization of Japan during the attacks. They often forget the military realities and the historical context while judging whether it was necessary for America to use nuclear weapons against the two Japanese cities. It is important to note that Japan was the aggressor. Japan triggered the war that led to the bombing of its two cities with its sneak attack on America’s Pearl harbour in 1941. Subsequent systematic and flagrant violation of several international agreements and norms through employment of chemical and biological warfare and mistreatment of prisoners of war and civilians aggravated the situation[ Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. (NY: Knopf, 1995), 89]. A response was needed to deal with increased aggression from Japan. Allied military planners had to choose between invading Japan and using the US atomic bombs in 1945[ Ronald Tabaki, Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. (Little, Brown, 1995), 101 ]. They had to weigh carefully the present and future costs and benefits for the American people. They decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The choice they made was justifiable. Initially, the US had planned to invade Japan in what was to be known as Operation Downfall. America would have provided most of the forces for the operation. The rest were to come from the British Commonwealth. However, the U.S projected that the operation would cost the country more than half a million soldiers. Furthermore, the U.S feared that an invasion would hav... ... middle of paper ... ...t that Japan was killing more people per week for many years than those who died in the single bombing event. Incriminating United States and ignoring the fact that Japan was already committing war crimes before the U.S struck is a weak attempt to argue that U.S bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All in all, though thousands of people died after the U.S bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best solution to Japanese aggression. The casualties of the bombings are far much less than the casualties of Japanese aggression. Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more than a million lives that would have been lost if the war had continued for the next one year. The bombing was a better option because invasion of Japan would have resulted in many civilian casualties. Therefore, the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified.
On August 6, 1945, the first bomb was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Three days later on August 9, the second bomb hit Nagasaki. Whether the United States made a moral and ethical decision is still an ongoing debate. President Truman was faced with a difficult choice. The U.S. chose to adopt a stance that seemed to limit the amount of casualties in the war, by significantly shortening it with the use of atomic weapons. It was certainly a reasonable view for the USA to take, since they had suffered the loss of more than thousands of lives, both military and civilian. To the top rank of the US military the death toll was worth it to prevent the “many thousands of American troops that would have been killed in invading Japan.” This was a grave
To fully examine the factors that led to the United States to drop an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, one can look at the event as a result of two major decisions. The first decision concerned the use of newly developed nuclear weapons in lieu of other military techniques to secure a timely Japanese surrender. The second decision was to use several of these weapons instead of only one. Although the Truman administration displayed little hesitation or ambivalence over the decision to use atomic weapons (Walker, 51), it is important to examine what factors contributed to these swift actions.
Upon reading “Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan” by J. Samuel Walker, a reader will have a clear understanding of both sides of the controversy surrounding Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The controversy remains of whether or not atomic bombs should have been used during the war. After studying this text, it is clear that the first atomic bomb, which was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, was a necessary military tactic on ending the war. The second bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki, however, was an unnecessary measure in ensuring a surrender from the Japanese, and was only used to seek revenge.
The United States was justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for many reasons. First of all, just to start out, the bombings had nothing to do with Japan, it was about the Cold War and the real reason America used these weapons was to show Russia that the US possessed them. Second, the war in the Pacific had been raging for almost four years. The two battles immediately preceding the bomb decision were Iwo Jima and Okinawa, two battles where the Japanese fought to the death and the cost in American casualties was horrific. It was predicted that the invasion of the Japanese mainland at the Island of Kyushu -- scheduled for November of 1945 -- would be even worse. The entire Japanese military and civilian population would fight to the death. American casualties -- just for that initial invasion to get a foothold on the island of Japan would have taken up to an estimated two months and would have resulted in up to 75,000 to 100,000 casualties. And that was just the beginning. Once the island of Kyushu was captured by U.S. troops, the remainder of Japan would follow. You can just imagine the cost in injuries and lives this would take. Also It is not beyond the possibility that a million or more Americans could have been killed had we landed. The Japanese had correctly guessed where we intended to land, and were ready and waiting for us. The casualties would have been high. Another reason the atomic bomb was justified is the bomb was dropped with a desire to save lives. It is a matter of math. How many Americans lost their lives fighting how many Japanese at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa. The mathematical formula showed the closer we got to Japan the more we lost.
The United States of America’s use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has spurred much debate concerning the necessity, effectiveness, and morality of the decision since August 1945. After assessing a range of arguments about the importance of the atomic bomb in the termination of the Second World War, it can be concluded that the use of the atomic bomb served as the predominant factor in the end of the Second World War, as its use lowered the morale, industrial resources, and military strength of Japan. The Allied decision to use the atomic bomb not only caused irreparable physical damage on two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along
Donohue, Nathan. "Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Center for Strategic and International Studies. N.p., 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 4 Jan. 2014.
The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was completely justified in both cause and impact. An intense weapon was necessary to force a quick Japanese surrender. The bomb saved thousands upon thousands of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost if the war continued or an invasion occurred. The bomb was the only way to end the suffering of the millions who were being held captive by the Japanese oppressor. The weapon of mass destruction also sent a powerful message to the shaky Soviet allies. The choice to use the atomic bomb was justified because it compelled a Japanese surrender, saved countless lives, served as retribution for the sufferings of many people, and acted as an anti-Soviet deterrent.
Throughout history, there have been countless wars between different groups of people because of race, religion, economic basis, and endless other reasons. More often than not the party that initiated the war was not justified in doing so based on Douglas Lackey’s “just war theory”. One action initiated by the United States that has been furiously debated since the decision was made is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and later Nagasaki. While some argue that President Harry S. Truman was wrong in making the decision that he did, I will be arguing that he was correct in deciding to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima because there is clear evidence that shows his actions were justified with both statistical proof as well as that the choice coincides with the criteria for “just war theory”.
With multiple chances from the United States to surrender in the war and rejecting each one, the Japanese set themselves up for disaster. On August 6, 1945 the course of history was changed. Two atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima, and three days later, August 9, 1945, on Nagasaki that ended World War II. Japan had already been a defeated nation from conventional bombs and World War II. Many innocent lives were lost, psychological scars were left on the lives of the bomb survivors, and thus many lives were changed forever. The atomic bombings caused many people to have genetic effects due to the radiation from the bombs. Revisionists have said the US used the bombs to blackmail the Soviet Union. The deployment of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally justified because it ended the war quickly, ultimately saved many lives, and was a beginning for many.
In my opinion, the decision to use the atomic bomb was harsh and rash, but necessary to end the war and protect American lives and interests. Sometimes harsh decisions need to be made in order to serve the greater good. It was somewhat unjust to the Japanese civilians but in the end saved many military lives that would have been wasted if the war dragged on for who knows how many more years. This is why, in the end, I feel it was the best way to put the storm of World War 2 to rest.
...ings by saying that it saved millions of Americans, but I came to find out that, that wasn’t so true. While looking through many articles, books, and databases, I realized that before getting this assignment I only knew the things that were shared with me about this subject. I knew what everyone wanted me to know and I never questioned it. I believed that if our country were to bomb someone, they’d have justifiable reasons as to why they did it. This event taught me that just because there are a few myths as to why something happened, you don’t have to agree with them. America is my home, but never will I ever agree that the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. They could have been avoided and lives could have
On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This was an extremely controversial military strategy in the United States. Was the United States justified in the dropping of the atomic bomb? The U.S. feared the rise of communism and gave aid to any country against it. The U.S. also fought countries threatening the spread communism. One of these countries was Japan. We began a harsh and brutal war against Japan and against communism. This war was killing many soldiers and Japan was not backing down. President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb when things were getting worse. The decision to use the atomic bomb was a difficult one and many people wonder if it was the right choice.
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 Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings were partially justified because it ended the war sooner, and prevented the use of nuclear weapons in the Cold War, however, it caused radiation poisoning that lasted
At the end of the Second World War, a decision was made that would greatly affect the world for decades to come. That decision was to drop the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The nuclear detonation that took place on August 6th, 1945 sent shockwaves through the world: one country now had the power to destroy an entire city, with just one bomb. But was it a just weapon to use? Perhaps the United States could have used a different option to end the war? Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2 was unjust because the U.S. did not exhaust it’s less violent options for ending the war, and because intentional attacks on noncombatants are never justified. Furthermore, the human suffering caused