Theatomic bombings on Japanese cities
Theatomic bombings on Japanese cities were they justified?
Thedecision to use atomic bombs against Japan has been and remains to bea controversial issue in the American history. Over the past,arguments about the use of atomic bombings have gained as well aslost backing, as new studies and evidence come into light. However,the paramount concern and aim remain to be the role and justificationof the bombings. The use of the nuclear weapon has caused a schismbetween the Americans and Japanese. Americans have, over the years,approved of the attack claiming that it was justified on the otherside, Japanese berate the decision. Opinions have been changing aspeople view the incidence from different perspectives[ CITATION Wai l 1033 ].The essay seeks to establish whether the decision to use atomicbombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified or not.
Proponentsof the attacks indicate that it was the lesser evil option to thealternatives. In war, there are no right decisions and leaders mustchoose the option that is worse to ensure victory[ CITATION Wai l 1033 ].The attack on Japanese cities was awful, but the scenario wouldprobably have been worse if America took other alternatives.Additionally, the Japanese government had already waged war againstinvading forces by ordering civilians to participate in the war.Therefore, the atomic bomb decision was necessary to put to an endthe bloodshed and prevent further destruction. Finally, bothcountries had declared total war, and there was hardly any differencebetween wrong and right. On the other hand, the atomic attackopponents claim that it was a barbaric and unethical way to end thewar by opting for mass suicide[ CITATION Ken16 l 1033 ].Bombing Japan was not only a war crime but a crime against humanity.
Theatomic bombings were necessary for getting Japan to surrender andprevent further loss of lives and property. The Japanese militaryofficers were determined to further the battle despite all costs. Onthe other hand, opponents suggest that Japan would have concededdefeat even if America had not used atomic bombs and even if Russiahad not joined the battle[ CITATION Wai l 1033 ].According to military advisors, bombing Japan was not necessary asAmerica had already won the war and Japan was ready to accept defeat. Therefore, from a military perspective, the atomic bombs did nothave any significant role in the Japanese defeat.
Accordingto statistics, Americans anticipated a loss of more soldiers, if theinvasion plan had persisted. In 1953, the U.S. President Harry Trumanhad projected 250, 000 to one million war casualties[ CITATION Ken16 l 1033 ].On the other hand, Japanese losses were approximated to be millionsincluding military personnel and civilians. Supporters of thebombings claim that the attack was necessary because it acceleratedthe culmination of the war.
Inconclusion, varying opinions and perspectives exist on the atomicbombings of Japan and the role of the attack in Japan’s surrender.Some people regard the attack as a primary decisive factor, whileother view it as a minor factor. However, the key element to consideris the crime against humanity and the loss of innocent lives. In thecontemporary world, the issue of nuclear weapons has raised securityconcerns among the international community. As a result, there havebeen policies and regulations in place, concerning the use of nuclearweapons to prevent such incidences in the future.
Kennedy, D. M., Cohen, L., & Piehl, M. (2016). The Brief American Pageant: A History of the Republic, Volume II: Since 1865. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Wainstock, D. D. (2013). The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 1945. New York: Enigma Books.