Morality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

810 Words2 Pages

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a necessary action taken by the United States government in order to ensure that their allies does not receive any more casualties from the conflict with the Japanese Empire during World War II. If United States did not use the atomic bomb on the island there would have been a higher number of casualties from the U.S troops. The first reason why the U.S would have lost more troops was because the Japanese soldiers had an extremely strong conviction that their country was the righteous side of the war and they were doing the right thing for the greater good of the empire. They would have fought until the last man while attempting to take the U.S soldiers with them. Another reason is that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets; Hiroshima was the main military base that act as a guardian for southern Japan while Nagasaki was a naval base that distributed supplies to the armies of Japan. The last reason why the use of the atomic bomb was justified was because there were no laws regulating the use of the atomic bomb during World War II but it also discouraged future use of other atomic bombs because after the success of the Manhattan project other nations developed their own bomb but were afraid to use it because they were concerned about the aftermath of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally justified because the United States had a legitimate reason at the time to use the atomic bomb, which was to save American lives. Before United States decided to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were using a tactic called Island Hopping. Island Hopping involved American forces occupying islands that leads toward Japan. Du... ... middle of paper ... ...g the islands. It could also encourage the Japanese to surrender quickly so that American lives will be saved from certain doom. The stance of this argument could be rebut with the statement that the suffering of the inhabitants, which consisted mostly of people who aren’t able to participate in the war was immoral because they posed no threat at all towards the invading troops of the United States. The statement would be considered bias towards the invading American troops because it focused solely on the suffering of Japanese population without considering how much the American troops suffered throughout the war because they had a very high casualties from island hopping and also most the army was comprised of civilians that were forced to be drafted into the army meaning they also had no intention of harming anyone without the orders from the commander in chief.

Open Document