Was it Right to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Essay Example

Was it Right to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? America is generally understood to have ended World War II by dropping atomic weapons on two military industrialized cities in Japan; however, this action is also blamed for causing incalculable human agony that has been hard to justify. This act introduced new questions and conceptions concerning how wars might be waged in the future and calling into question whether or not humanity would survive very far into the future and has initiated a global debate regarding if those actions was truly necessary. Questions on the subject of those nuclear attacks are multifaceted. While it is frequently proposed that “The Bomb” was the only way to ensure a Japanese surrender, Japan was asking only one concession from the U.S. at the time – the emperor is allowed to remain as head of state. Had the U.S. agreed to this, might have the massive destruction of a principally civilian populace been avoided? Taking this into consideration, it is obligatory for history to question President Truman’s motivations for authorizing its use. Was it really necessary to use this swift resolution to the prolonged deadly war so as to ultimately save many thousands of lives, both American and Japanese, which surely would have been lost if the Americans invaded mainland Japan? Or was the reason, as has been theorized, a decision based more so on keeping the former Soviet Union from having input as regards to the partition of post-war Asia much as it had following the war in Europe? Critics charge that even given that the first bomb might be justified, the extensive devastation along with the collateral and continuing damage was devastating enough. The second bomb was an unnecessary “overkill” and should not have been utilized. The main reasoning generally provided to use the bomb was that it saved many thousands of lives on both sides by eradicating the need to fight the Japanese on their homeland, a horrific prospect. When the battles for Okinawa and the Philippines were occurring, President Truman was contemplating a massive ground invasion of Japan’s mainland. At this time, the U.S. Naval ships were stationed right off Japan’s coast and its submarines were positioned in the Sea of Japan. Because American troops faced fierce opposition at Okinawa and Iwo Jima it was projected that more than half a million soldiers would die if the invasion of Japan scheduled November 1, 1945 were to happen. (Watson, 2002). However, what seldom enters the debate is a comparison of the victims concerned – civilians and soldiers. The initial atomic blast flattened more than half the city of Hiroshima. Seventy thousand people were killed instantaneously. Another atomic bomb destroyed Nagasaki on August 9. (Kay, 2005). Intentionally attacking civilians is not regarded as morally acceptable despite of any actual or perceived results. Of course, the precedent for WWII was set in the European theater when German populations were firebombed. The view that the first bomb was justifiable but the second was not remains commonly held by most, at least from the American perspective. The second bomb was not dropped to save lives. The actual motivations are debated to this day. In addition to contemplating the mainland invasion, President Truman along with his staff knew that if Japan surrendered before the Soviets became involved in the Asian war, Russia would have claim for involvement in the post-war treaty. Also, by 1945, America was war weary and its people had grown to become profoundly prejudiced against both the Germans and Japanese and considered both peoples to be naturally evil. A poll conducted at the end of WWII by Fortune Magazine found that almost 25 percent of Americans thought that “many more” atomic bombs should have been dropped on the Japanese before that nation had the chance to give up. (Dower, 1986: 54). These polling numbers accurately depicted the passionate hatred that Americans had towards the Japanese during the war. This sentiment may have been especially true of the military and its leadership. “While Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare.” (Zacharias, 1949) President Truman was not impervious to these resentful feelings towards the Japanese people himself. Less than one week before the Hiroshima bombing, in July of 1945, Truman wrote in his journal depicting the Japanese as “savages, ruthless, merciless, and fanatic” (Dower, 1986: 142). It has often been asserted that the judgment to use the bomb essentially gave little consideration to the largely civilian population, was pointless and was rooted mainly on the Soviets ambitions in Asia. The American military had been continuously fire-bombing large Japanese cities, including Tokyo, Japan’s capital, for several months prior to dropping the bomb. It can never be known if conventional bombing campaigns alone would have eventually caused Japan to surrender but that along with the naval blockade surrounding the now conquered nation would eventuality have led to surrender. However, it is likely that countless more Japanese civilians, almost certainly numbers ranging in the millions, would have lost their lives in that process. Additionally, if the war had lasted any longer at all, the threat of Soviets involvement in the region was imminent and frightening. “Had they (the Soviets) had a hand in postwar affairs in Asia, the boundaries of the world would be very different today.” (Zimmerman, 2000). The Soviet army entered the Korean peninsula just prior to the bombing of Hiroshima. It would not have taken very long for the Soviets to have obtained enough Korean land to be able to force a seat for themselves at the post-war negotiations table. Had this occurred, the Soviets plan was to occupy both Korea and Japan to the now historic 38th parallel. The U.S. would not have able to refuse the Soviets because its troops would be occupying these lands. Given this scenario, history shows that ending the war quickly was actually favorable for the future of Japan. “The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki served three purposes: it terminated the conflict instantly, saving American lives; it insured a united Japan rather than leaving half of the country to the same fate as North Korea; and perhaps it provided an example which has deterred the use of nuclear arms for 55 years” (Zimmerman, 2000). The U.S. was right to drop the first bomb on Hiroshima even though it was a mostly civilian population. Had the war not come to a conclusion when it did might Russia have claimed the entirety of Korea and Japan long before today? It’s a highly likely and an unacceptable scenario especially for the Japanese and Koreans. Might that have drawn the U.S. into a war? Again, it’s very possible. All things considered and given that hindsight is 20/20 the first bomb, though horrific, was necessary. The second bomb was a result of bigotry and hate. It can be understood why America felt this way toward the Japanese and Germans but it doesn’t make it right. Works Cited Dower, John W. “War Without Mercy.” New York: Pantheon Books. (1986). Kay, Joseph. “Sixty years since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.” International Committee of the Fourth International (August 6, 2005). March 25, 2012 < http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/hiro-a06.shtml> Watson, Thomas, Jr. “Ending the War Against Japan: Science, Morality and the Atomic Bomb” Brown University (2002). March 25, 2012 < http://www.chagala.com/japan.pdf> Zacharias, Ellis. “The A-Bomb Was Not Needed.” United Nations World (Aug. 1949, pg. 29) Zimmerman, Peter D. “History of The Atomic Bomb.” St. Petersburg Times. (August 6, 2000). March 25, 2012 Read More