The United States' use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justified - Research Paper Example

On August 9, another bomb destroyed Nagasaki (Truman, 1945). For those that condone its use, the moral questions are satisfied because, though many thousands were killed or maimed, the bomb saved many more thousands of lives on both sides. If, in fact, the use of the atomic bomb averted an invasion of Japan thus saving more lives than were lost in the bombing of Hiroshima, the moral dilemma is indisputable. However, even for those of this opinion, the issue regarding the morality of the second bombing remains in dispute.

This is not sufficient justification for others who believe the use of the bomb was wrong given any criteria of moral judgment. Deliberately attacking a civilian population is not considered morally acceptable regardless of any real or perceived outcomes. This view was and remains popularly held by both American civilians and the military; this reasoning was not employed in this case, but why? Was it the passions of wartime, a justifiable act in this one instance or was the bombing wrong under any circumstance?

In 1945, the U.S. was a country weary of war and its citizens deeply prejudiced against both the Japanese and Germans believing that both types of peoples were inherently evil. Though a ridiculous notion today, it is a somewhat understandable sentiment given the nature of the circumstances at that time and overall acceptance of racism during this period in American history. Following the end of the war, a poll conducted by Fortune Magazine found that nearly a quarter of the American people thought that the U.S. should have used “many more” atomic bombs on the Japanese before that country had the opportunity to surrender (Dower, 1986: 54).

These polling results accurately reflected the intense hatred that Americans directed towards the Japanese people during the conflict. President Truman himself, as well as many other American political leaders, was not immune to these