Was bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

My opinion is that it was not

1. Atomic bombs played little to no role to convince Japan to surrender

This is proven by the fact that the Japanese leadership continued to downplay the atomic bombings even after the second one was dropped. Nagasaki was bombed on August 9 but Japan didn't surrender until August 15. If the atomic bombs played a decisive role in Japan's surrender, Japan would've surrendered immediately rather than wait 7 days at the risk of more atomic bombings (remember it was just a 3-day gap between Hiroshima and Nagasaki). It’s also worth pointing out that many Japanese cities had been destroyed to a greater extent by conventional bombing than the atomic bombs had on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but this hadn’t weakened Japan’s resolve to fight. Although the method to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki was different, means are rarely more important than ends. Aerial bombing including atomic bombings, were obviously futile to convince the Japanese leadership to surrender immediately.

2. Soviet intervention meant atomic bombs were arguably unnecessary

The Japanese leadership strongly believed that they could still negotiate a surrender with the Allies - rather than accept the unconditional surrender - as long as the USSR remained neutral and did not side with the Allies. It was the neutrality of the USSR that kept Japan in the war. On August 9 the USSR declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria, as part of Stalin’s promise to Roosevelt that the USSR would intervene exactly 3 months after Germany was defeated. By August 15, the Kwantung Army had capitulated and the Soviets were well positioned to invade Japan from Manchuria, Korea, Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. This event was the reason why Japan surrendered on August 15 and not August 9. Even if the atomic bombs were not dropped, Japan would’ve still surrendered on August 15 because of the fall of Manchuria, the capitulation of the Kwantung Army and the threat of a Soviet invasion. This means that the atomic bombs unnecessarily killed 250,000 people since it wasn’t the factor that ended the war. The importance of the Soviet intervention in ending the war cannot be ignored.

3. Militarily unnecessary and unethical

Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and Nimitz told Truman at the time and later confessed after the war that the Soviet intervention and the Allied sea blockade was enough to get Japan to surrender. These men knew more about the military situation than Truman, and more importantly, these men were taught not to wage war on women and children. The US military saw the atomic bombs as militarily unnecessary and unethical, which means that the decision to drop atomic bombs was more of a political decision rather than a military one.

4. Unnecessary destruction of whole cities

Truman wanted to test the atomic bomb on cities and people to examine its effects – and he could not do this on a test site. The war against Japan gave him the opportunity study the effects of nuclear weaponry on cities and people. This is proven by the fact Truman selected Hiroshima and Nagasaki to drop the atomic bombs - these two cities were largely untouched and therefore allowed him to accurately measure the complete damage on whole cities.

5. Intentional use for unethical research of the victims

Truman was interested to find out how radiation from nuclear weapons affected people's health. This is proven by the fact Truman set up the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) after the war to examine the victims' bodies. The ABCC was purely for scientific research and it didn't provide any sort of medical care for the victims. This is further proof that Truman was keen to know how the atomic bombs affected people – by neglecting the well being of survivors for the sake of research.

6. Unnecessary study of two different types of atomic bombs on cities

The US had two types of atomic bombs - a uranium type and a plutonium type. Truman wanted to compare the uranium type with the plutonium type to see which one was more powerful. This is proven by the fact that a uranium type bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, while a plutonium type bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

7. A decision influenced by racism and discrimination

Many Americans viewed the Japanese as a sub-human race the same way Germans viewed Slavs. In 1944, a public poll showed that 13% of the US public voted for the "complete extermination of the Japanese race". Such emotional anti-Japanese sentiment made many Americans believe using atomic weapons on Japanese cities was justified, and decisions based on racism are never good ones. After the war, many saw a connection between the way American troops mutilated the dead bodies of Japanese troops, the fact that Japanese Americans were sent to concentration camps, and the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. Contrast this to the fact that American troops never mutilated the dead bodies of German or Italian troops, German and Italian Americans were never sent to internment camps, and the US would never have dropped an atomic bomb on a German city. There was specific hatred toward the Japanese. The conventional bombing of Japanese cities (i.e. Tokyo) is never debated as a war crime, but the conventional bombing of German cities (i.e. Dresden) is hotly debated as a war crime. Would there even be a debate if it were the American nuking of Dresden?

8. Appeared justified due to promoted image of Japanese fanatic resistance

The perception that Japanese civilians would fight to the death was enhanced by American propaganda to justify the use of the atomic bombs. Japan in fact protected their civilians and never forced women and children to fight. The bushido code really only applied to military. At Iwo Jima, all Japanese civilians were evacuated before the battle and the only Japanese left on Iwo Jima were the soldiers. It’s also worth pointing out that Iwo Jima is a Japanese home island. At Okinawa, there were no Japanese civilians to begin with. The civilians at Okinawa were Okinawans - who are a different ethnic group. When the Soviets invaded Manchuria, all Japanese civilians in Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands were also evacuated.

9. Unnecessary Cold War propaganda tool

Truman opposed any sort of Soviet occupation of Japan, or Asia for that matter. A planned US invasion of Japan was to ensure that if the USSR invaded Japan, the US could stop the entire country from falling to communism. If the US and USSR both invaded Japan, the country would've been divided like North and South Korea. The fact that the US military landed in South Korea just 6 days after WW2 is proof that Truman was ready to stop Soviet advances anywhere in Asia at all costs. Truman used the atomic bombs to prevent a Soviet takeover of Japan by showing the USSR how powerful the US was. Ultimately, Stalin was so surprised by the atomic bombs that he didn't argue with Truman and demand joint occupation of Japan (even India and NZ were part of the joint occupation). The atomic bomb was typical Cold War propaganda that gave the US a “political victory” over the USSR. Think back to when the Soviets launched the Sputnik into space, and when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon – in both cases it was all Soviet and American propaganda. The atomic bombs were no exception.

10. Terrorist act

Some have defined the atomic bombings as a form of state terrorism no different to 9/11. In both cases, the US and al-Qaeda targeted innocents to achieve a political goal and attempted to psychologically terrorize the population. As the former US Secretary of War Henry Stimson said in 1947: "The atomic bomb was more than a weapon of terrible destruction; it was a psychological weapon."

11. A war crime

There are some who call it the classic example of a war crime. Those who don't think it’s a war crime ask yourself this: Say the Allies won the war without dropping any atomic bombs. But say if during the war an Axis power had dropped an atomic bomb on an Allied city. Would you classify that act as a war crime? If you answered “yes” than ask yourself: what is the difference between that and an Allied power dropping one on an Axis city? If you answered “no” than ask yourself: would the Allied leaders agree with you?

View this argument alone.

Burlington Represent!!

View this argument alone.