The decision of the USA to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki remains one of the most debatable topics in the history of the Second World War. Even though the event took place more than half a century ago, there is still no consensus as to whether it can be justified or not. Historians continue heated discussions regarding this event. Those who support the US decision argue that this was the only way to bring the long-running war to an end quickly and decisively (Truman 419). They claim that despite thousands of deceased civilians, it was necessary to destroy the Japanese land army thus the atomic bombs were regarded as unpleasant yet the only possible alternative (Stimson 99). Those who criticize the decision state that thousands of victims are a too high price for bringing the war to an end. The research on this problem reveals that there is a series of objective reasons that demonstrate that the US decision cannot be justified either from the moral or from the rational perspectives.
First and foremost, the US decision to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be justified due to the conditions under which the decision was made; more specifically, the threat that Japan posed at that time was exaggerated in the US interpretation. The bombing took place in August 1945 when all major allies of Japan (i.e. Germany and Italy) had already surrendered at discretion and put out of the war. On its own, Japan was not able to stand against the allies and posed little threat to the allies. The USA was eager to end the war as quickly as possible and at last, bring “the sunburst of deliverance” to their soldiers and civilian population, however, the selected means and the implied harm did not comply with the aim set (Bernstein).
Second, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be justified due to the enormous casualties among the Japanese civilian population. The aim of the US military command was to destroy the Japanese land army but both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were heavily populated cities thus the explosions resulted in thousands of deaths among civilians. The estimations of victims report at least a hundred thousand deceased persons (Stimson 99). The use of atomic bombs was a barbarian act that cannot be explained within the discourse of a civilized democratic society (Leahy 441). As it was the first case of atomic bombing, the precedent shattered the existed moral and ethical principles of humanity.
Third, the use of atomic bombs against Japan cannot be considered justified due to the large devastation that was brought to the whole country and economy. The bombing resulted in the almost complete destruction of two densely-populated cities. Besides large casualties, this destruction led to the devastation of the economy not only in one region but on a nationwide scale. The infrastructure was completely destroyed and for a small country like Japan, it meant a significant slowdown in growth indicators and longtime recovery. The development of the whole country was impeded due to the need for addressing the consequences of the atomic bombing. Large cities were flattened and the land turned to a burned desert (Hachiya). It took Japan several decades to eliminate the negative effects of US decision to drop bombs on the heavily-populated and well-developed region. In this respect, the question arises as to the whether it was objectively necessary to use such a devastating weapon to enforce the peace on the last remaining enemy.
Fourth, the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities cannot be justified due to the destructive ecological consequences. Thus atomic energy brought not only immediate physical damages but also longstanding negative impact on the ecological situation in the whole region. The main challenge associated with managing the ecological aspect of atomic devastation is the impossibility to overcome such consequences within a short-term timeframe. The ecological problems require continuous work and significant financial investments. The use of atomic bombs had a negative impact on the environment of Japan as well as many neighboring countries so that there are objective grounds for this decision to be considered as a crime against humanity on the whole (Document 4). The adverse effects of this military action can still be seen on the Japanese territory; moreover, its true effects on the global ecology are still estimated.
To conclude, there are at least four reasons that support the claim that the decision of the US government to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be justified. The decision was made at the end of the war when all allies of militaristic Japan already surrendered. Acting alone, Japan was of relatively little threat for the USA and their allies thus such decision cannot be qualified as adequate. Moreover, the atomic explosions in two large Japanese cities resulted in deaths of the civilian population with estimated numbers of victims counting for at least a hundred thousand deceased persons. From the moral perspective, no military commitment can justify such losses. Additionally, the explosions destroyed two large cities and devastated the infrastructure of the region. Such damages greatly decreased the economic potential of the whole country and detained her development. Besides human losses, the atomic explosions damaged the environment and resulted in serious ecological problems, the consequences of which can be seen even today. These are only a few reasons that expose the unjustified character of the US decision back in 1945.
- Bernstein, Lester. “Document 5.” New York Times, 24 October 1965.
- “Document 4.” Nippon Times (Tokyo), 10 August 1945.
- Hachiya, Michihiko. Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician August 6 -September 30. The University of North Carolina Press, 1945.
- Leahy, William D. I Was There. Whittlesey House, 1950.
- Stimson, Henry L. “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” Harper’s Magazine, Feb. 1947, pp. 98-101.
