WAS IT NECESSARY TO DROP THE ATOMIC BOMB ON HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI?
The pros, the cons, and the ethics.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a very touchy subject for many people. We recently discussed this topic in class and there were a lot more arguments and opinions flying around than there usually are for class discussions. When considering moral arguments, I definitely don’t think that the bombs should’ve been dropped. So many innocent civilians were affected by it and generations of Japanese suffered the after-effects of the atomic bomb. I mean, the Americans had already firebombed around 67 Japanese cities quite effectively. Why did they have to go on to use not just one, but two, atomic bombs on the Japanese? However, when considering military tactics and the quickest way to end the war with the fewest losses, I have a slightly different opinion. I believe that President Truman (of the USA) should have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima but not on Nagasaki. I think that his actions in deciding to bomb Hiroshima were justifiable since I think that they contributed to severely weakening Japan, leading to Japan’s eventual surrender and a swift end to the war.
Why exactly were the bombs used?
1. To secure a quick, painless victory for the Allies with the least possible deaths (for them).
2. To save money. Using the bombs was the most cost effective option.
3. To prevent the Soviet Union from advancing into Japan. This put off the spread of communism in Asia and prevented Stalin from playing a large role in peace negotiations.
4. To assert US power.
5. To test the atomic bomb’s effects on people and cities.
WAS JAPAN REALLY GOING TO SURRENDER?
What’s important to understand is that the samurai warrior culture is deeply ingrained in Japanese society. The Bushido code, which involves soldiers and even civilians fighting to the death, was part of the Japanese military strategy. Despite the fact that the Japanese were close to destruction before the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were still fighting hard. Surrender was not an option for them. Evidence of their resilience came when American forces invaded Okinawa in March 1945; 100 000 Japanese soldiers fought nearly to the last person. Furthermore, Japanese pilots flew kamikaze attacks (suicide missions) in which they deliberately crashed their aircraft into US warships. In addition, an estimated 10 000 women and children committed suicide by jumping off the island’s cliffs during the Battle of Saipan in order to avoid being taken as prisoners by the Americans. Considering the undying perseverance of the Japanese, I doubt they were about to surrender. So, in my opinion, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was the right decision because it further weakened the Japanese, brought down their morale, and likely opened their minds to the idea of surrendering.
WAS A LAND INVASION A BETTER OPTION?
I definitely do not think that a land invasion was a better option. In fact, I think that bombing Hiroshima was the right choice because it meant that a land invasion was no longer needed in order to defeat the Japanese. A land operation would have been costly in terms of both money and lives (might have cost up to 2 million lives, both American and other). Thus, by utilizing the bomb, the war was ended more quickly, fewer people died, and the $2 billion that had already been spent on the development of the bomb were not wasted. In addition, an important strategic city for the Japanese was completely destroyed (Hiroshima was a key centre for shipping, the headquarters of the Army Marine and the headquarters of the 2nd General Army & Chugoku Regional Army).
CONTAINING COMMUNISM
I also think that the use of the atomic bomb was beneficial since it served as a display of American power, thus helping to contain the Russians and prevent the spread of communism in Asia. Since the Americans bombed Hiroshima before Russia entered the war, the US was seen as the undisputed victor of the war as Soviet assistance had not been required. This prevented the Soviet Union from playing a large role in the peace talks that followed, thus preventing the spread of their sphere of communist influence and power. For these reasons I believe that Truman made the right decision in unleashing the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
COULD THE SITUATION HAVE BEEN AVOIDED?
I think the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been avoided if Truman had decided to go through with a land invasion or just blew up the bombs on a deserted island. But there are various reasons why these two options wouldn’t have worked out so well. If Truman had demonstrated the bomb’s power on a deserted island, the Japanese would likely not have been impressed nor would they have surrendered. The $2 billion spent developing the bomb would have been wasted. With a land invasion, the casualties would be even higher than those caused by the bombs. Furthermore, the Soviet Union would have had time to become involved in Japan, thus resulting in the spread of communism in Asia. So, in my opinion, the bombing of Hiroshima shouldn’t have been avoided. Although in the eyes of many American military leaders Japan was already defeated, the Bushido code of Japanese soldiers meant that they wouldn’t surrender without a fight. Therefore, I think that the demonstration of US power and of the atomic bomb was needed in order for the Japanese to realize there was no chance for them to win the war and that it would be best if they simply surrendered.
WHAT ABOUT NAGASAKI?
In my humble opinion, Nagasaki should not have been bombed. This is because, like what historian Barton Bernstein said, “Whatever one thinks about the necessity of the first A-bomb, the second — dropped on Nagasaki on August 9 — was almost certainly unnecessary”. I also think that Truman didn’t give the Japanese enough time to surrender after bombing Hiroshima on August 6th. As General Eisenhower said, “Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of ‘face’. It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing”. It was unnecessary to bomb Nagasaki because the US had already demonstrated their superiority with the first atomic bomb, they’d destroyed a key military base and they’d already killed more than 70 000 people. I believe the Japanese would’ve surrendered soon enough even without the bombing of Nagasaki or any additional attacks.
WHY SHOULD WE CARE?
The use of atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is significant because it helped to end the war in what some people thought was an efficient way and what others thought was simply barbarous. The bombs were the message that signalled to people that the nuclear age had arrived. The use of the bombs to display American prowess (especially in order to stop the spread of communism) was also important since it triggered the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. Both of these events hugely influenced society, public opinion, foreign relations, and scientific research throughout the rest of the century. Furthermore, the effects on health observed on Japanese victims aided in furthering our understanding of the human body’s ability to withstand radioactive material. Finally, the controversy surrounding the use of nuclear weapons continues to spark moral and military arguments around the world.
Written: Wednesday, December 4th, 2013
