War and Military History
Atomic Bombs

Can the dropping of the atomic bomb be justified?

User Avatar
Wiki User
2012-04-29 23:21:11

your father, grandfather, uncle, or brother had survived the

European war, then was sent to the Pacific for the invasion of

Japan. Millions of soldiers were scheduled to take part in this

action and at least half a million were expected to die. If your

relative had died in a September-October invasion and you later

learned that Truman had access to a weapon that would have almost

certainly ended the war in August without costing a single American

life, you (and millions of other Americans) would have been ready

to lynch the President. It is also a fact that there were LESS

Japanese casualties from the two nuclear bombs than from the

firebombings that preceeded them and these would have continued for

at least a month or two before the invasion. Another point is that

the Japanese people had been instructed to defend the home islands

by all means, even to attack tanks and troops with shovels,

broomsticks, and rocks. If this had happened, the defeat of Japan

would have meant the end of the Japanese culture. In the early

1940s the United States found themselves pulled into the war by the

bombing of Pearl Harbor. Thus, incase of another emergency a group

of international scientists from Germany, Canada, and United

Kingdom formed the Manhattan Project. The sole purpose of the

Manhattan Project was to successfully create and test the very

first nuclear weapon in the world, giving the Allied Powers a

distinct advantage in World War II. On August 6th and 9th of 1945

Harry Truman decided to drop the two atomic bombs, "Little Boy" and

"Fat Man", on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing around 200,000 people,

most due to exposure to radiation which causes cancer and leukemia.

I believe Harry Truman was justified in dropping the two atomic

bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although some may disagree. He

saved countless American, Allied, and even Axis power lives based

on his decision, gave the allied powers an advantage in the war

after forcing Japan out, and "August 6, 1945, day of the bomb: At

3A.M., Navy Captain William S. Parsons squatted in the cramped bomb

bay of the specially built B-29, the Enola Gay, and began to tinker

with the 10foot-long atomic bomb hanging from a hook in the ceiling

like a helpless whale." (Day of the Bomb) By 8:15 A.M. Truman had

ordered the drop of "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, a naval base in

Japan. Japan had chosen not to intercept this fleet, seeing that it

was not more than three aircrafts. Had Truman not decided to drop

"Little Boy" on Hiroshima and then a follow-up of "Fat Man" on

Nagasaki, we may have experienced many more years of war and death.

Although nearly 200,000 Japanese were killed during this explosion

and exposure to radiation, many more would have died if we

continued to have battles such as the ones in Iwo Jima, and

Okinawa. The decision of dropping these bombs was one that required

a lot of thought and consideration by Harry Truman. Although it was

a tough decision, "Yes, he would drop the bomb on Japan if he had

to do it over again. It saved a million lives didn't it?"(Day of

the Bomb) Had he not succeeded and forced Japan to surrender and

secede from this war, he may have forced them to invest more money

into their own nuclear weapons program and manage to eliminate half

of the United States due to nuclear explosions. Truman was

justified in his decision, and he managed to force Japan out, and

the end of the war was near. Many people view Harry Truman as

either one of the top presidents or one of the worst based on his

decision on this matter. He made the right decision and many of us

could not handle the decision that he had to make on this subject.

Based on his decision he saved countless lives, and ended the war.

After bombing Japan the 2nd time at the Nagasaki naval base, Japan

was forced to surrender. This gave the Allied powers an advantage

in the war, because with Japan out less supplies could get to such

countries as Germany, the result of which could have meant we lost

the war. By putting an end to the war he allowed many of the

remaining soldiers to return home to their friends and families and

regain their lives. In forcing an end to the war with his atomic

bomb decision, he allowed many countries to rebuild and refine

their armies and industries. This "great war" took a toll on the

industries mostly. As more men went to war, more materials and

supplies were needed, but as more men went, there were fewer men to

supply these necessities, especially at the pace needed. Thus, many

countries were running low on supplies. Putting an end to war saved

many from starvation, and again saved lives. During war times in

order to keep up with many other countries' military strength many

of our large businesses, companies, and factories such as General

Motors, or GMC, switch over from making what they normally do, such

as cars, to making tanks weaponry and ammunition. During these

times the United States becomes a manufacturing society. We manage

to decrease the price of making weapons, tanks, and ammunition

while using our assembly line method of production to make these

things faster, and we make these defense goods at a much more

efficient rate. Although our defense production goes up, so does

the price of the goods these companies usually produce because a

large amount of the man power going towards defense, the law of

supply and demand. Ending war allowed the United States, and many

other countries who share this method of production, to go back to

their normal system of production allowing these businesses to

begin making money again, changing us back to an industrial

society. On this topic Truman's decision was justified and greatly

impacted United States and every other country involved in the war.

He knew that by bombing these naval bases Japan had no choice but

surrender or else they might be bombed again and lose many more

lives that previously before. By using the atomic bomb on Japan at

Hiroshima and Nagasaki he made the right decision, and Japan had no

choice but to surrender after losing their two largest naval bases.

He saved countless more lives that he had taken, for both the

allied and axis powers. In addition to ending the war, he allowed

all the countries to slow down their supply production for the

soldiers and they were not as necessary. Last, he allowed the

United States' industries to make what they are specialized in,

from making defense goods to cars, clothes, and many other

products. Thus, Harry Truman was justified, although many lives may

have had to be sacrificed he was left with no other choice, or he

may have lost the war and many more soldiers. All that has been

said is true, but it's from the viewpoint of "pity the poor

innocent Japanese people."The dropping of the atomic bomb was

justified - it's a pity there were not more of them. What about the

poor people they butchered, killed, murdered, raped, etc etc all

throughout the war? They were innocent civilians too.What about

them? Doesn't anybody care about how they suffered? Why do you

think most of the south east Asian countries invaded by the

Japanese detest and hate them to this very day? What about the

allied POWs? Most returned POWs felt as much compassion for the

Japanese as they felt for their prisoners, and heartedly agreed

with the dropping of the atomic bombs, and the only reason for the

decreased antipathy towards the Japanese is that most of that

particular generation has died. Unlike Germany, Japan has never

even reluctantly admitted they were at fault in the war, let alone

admit responsibility and say sorry, least of all to ask for

forgiveness. The whole country was collectively culpable for the

approximately 6 million Asian civilian deaths alone and thus

collectively responsible for their due retribution. Plus I do not

feel that people should feel any moral outrage at the dropping of

the bomb as even greater atrocities examples of human depravity

were committed by the Japanese forces in their invasion of China

and treatment of war prisoners; for example, in the 'Rape of

Nanking' where 300,000 innocent civilians died , and the rapes of

small children culminating in the slitting of their throats. Any

argument even suggesting that the dropping of the atomic bomb on

Japan was unjustified on moral grounds despite their own

immoral behaviour, (and that is even even according to the

so-called 'rules' of war), is outright hypocrisy, and therefore

renders the argument null and void. You cannot use morality to

justify immorality. If you live by the sword you must expect to die

by the sword.

It depends on your point of view. IF you're asking was it right

that the people on the islands of Hiroshima and Nagasaki died as a

result of testing the devices - then I'd say no. IF you're asking

whether the millions of lives saved as a result of the success of

the test bombs justified the sacrifice of the people on the

islands, then I'd have to say yes. Without a 'field test' there

would have been no way of knowing the extent of devastation the

bombs were capable of.


Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.