by Max C

Created on: March 22, 2009   Last Updated: March 29, 2009

Ever since the decision to drop the two, first, and only bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people have asked themselves: Was the situation dire enough to necessitate their use? I will show you that while it may have seemed like a rash and foolhardy thing to do, President Truman had no other options available to him at the time. At the same time, I cannot ignore the fact that millions of lives were devastated, and that it unleashed an hellish weapon, as well as a very powerful bargaining tool.

Question #1: How greatly did the bombing affect the Japanese decision to surrender?

Obviously, the bombs served out their purpose, devastate and destroy enough lives, all at once, and show the Japanese government and people, the type of destructive power that their enemy had. It also helped that the Japanese had no clue as to how many bombs we had, whether the number be 100 more or 5 more (or none). As long as Japan knew that this kind of power now existed, a power that could instantly wipe cities of the map, and kill hundreds of thousands of people, there was no point in resisting any further. If you look at it, what other reason could've convinced the expansion hungry, brutal, extreme-nationalist government to surrender otherwise? Yes, the bombs did greatly affect the Japanese decision to surrender.

Question #2: Was the dropping of the bombs morally justifiable?

The answer is both no and yes. Is the mass killing of innocent civilians morally justifiable? No, is the mass killing of civilians morally justifiable, if it will save millions of other lives? Maybe. The real question should be did in fact the dropping of the bombs, and the subsequent surrender of Japan save millions of lives that an invasion by land would have cost. And to that question, I think that the estimate of over one millions casualties was frankly a little big. The Japanese admitted after the bombings that they were close to surrender either way, a land invasion would've convinced them, and Japan would've fallen. even with extremists in the government urging to "fight to the death," the government needs the public's support to function, the support which would've disappeared with the invasion of the mainland.

Question #3: Did Truman authorize the use of the bomb for diplomatic-political reasons- to intimidate the Soviets-or was his major goal to force Japan to surrender and bring the war to an early end?

Well the answer is obvious, both. The ultimate goal was to force Japan to surrender, and avoiding a mainland invasion, which worked. The bonus to using the bombs, was that Soviet Russia now knew clearly who the dominant power in the world was. But that would only last a short time, before the Soviets and the U.S. engaged in an arms race to stockpile the most Atomic Bombs. And if that had gone wrong, then there would be a war in which multiple nuclear bombs were used resulting in the end of Russian and the U.S., and the end of a few million people on either side. As you now see, the dropping of "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to prevent the further loss of innocent lives, and end the economic strain that the war was putting on the world. Keeping that in mind, we must also realize that even without the United States demonstrating the destructive power of the bomb to other countries, other powers were already in pursuit of the bomb. The only difference, is that now, the U.S. must bear the burden of having used this power on a large civilian population.

Learn more about this author, Max C.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.