Were the two atomic bombings of Japan justified?

For decades have the American children been taught that the two atomic bombings of Japan were needed for reasons such as preventing a potential major loss of more American troops. They would say that it won the war- that it ended World War II. The United States being the first nation to drop a weapon of mass destruction wasn’t agreed by many, as it had potential to ruin the public image of the nation. The amount of deaths and destructions caused by the two atomic bombs weren’t leagues above other mass murders, but their justification was heavily debated upon due to the threat those posed to world peace in the near future. The most popular and perhaps the only justification for the use of these weapons was to prevent a potential high-casualty invasion that was required to end the war. The calculated numbers varied from a quarter to one whole million. If this reason was to be challenged, then the only atomic bombings on a foreign nation may have been one of the biggest celebrated crimes in American history. Based on evidence that took decades to be declassified for the public, the justification for the two atomic bombings of Japan became moot, as it the actions were actually unnecessary for ending the war. After looking over the effects of the atomic bombings, it would be necessary to view both historical perspectives to determine whether those were justified.

Many can already visualize a bright, eye-burning light, and then followed by a colossal mushroom cloud with an expanding ring from either an aerial view or from a distance. These can be present in war films, usually shown briefly before the celebration of VJ Day. Those documentaries would’ve also done a great service had they shown pictures not just of ruined buildings, but also ruined people. There wouldn’t be much to see from ashes within the radius of the impact zone, as the people were granted a quicker, inevitable death from burning. The rest of the victims’ statuses are in a hierarchy based on the distance from the impact zone. Basically the closer you are, the less likely you are to survive. Some can face severe burning but still survive. They’ll then be greeted by radiation. Others can be spared from burning but still face physical injuries like all before. Some that were affected weren’t even born yet, although they may not have been given birth either. The last victims would be the unfortunate ones that came back too early, therefore also affected by radiation. The radiation would cause a wide diversity of mental and physical illnesses or simply death within weeks. The physical injuries add disabilities or mutilations of the body. The deformed victims would either die soon or live long enough to suffer discrimination while trying to lead life ordinarily. These events were terrible for the victims, and at least ten of them suffered both bombings. For Japan as a whole, the nation lost two cities and many lives. The effects of radiation poisoning had long-term effects that killed more and created more birth defects over the decades.

 

The United States President Harry S. Truman justified the bombings with an estimate of the amount of lives it would take for a land invasion on Japan. The results of the estimates were merely given, and rose from 400,000 casualties all the way to a whole million towards the end of the 1940s. That was of course right when an advocate must defend his or her actions- right when the controversies rise. The bombs, their capabilities, and psychological effects were seen as necessary to make the honor-bound Japan surrender. The Japanese acts of bravery and brutality were present in their policies of no surrendering, and the American public was well aware of that. It was supposed that Japan wouldn’t surrender easily, and they indeed lived up to their honor with the first atomic bomb. The second one sealed the deal. All seemed well, as the sacrifice of a few hundred thousand people in the dense area of just two cities seemed a better option than the sacrifice of a “so-called million” American lives and added Japanese defenders across their island.

 

All would be well after VJ day, except when the Cold War began with the threat of a nuclear war actually being a thing to worry about. So the introduction of the weapon of mass destruction actually did bring consequences that the public was allowed to know about. This conflict between the US and the USSR would not begin after WWII, but before the end of it- including the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The justification for the atomic bombs was the threat of the loss of more American lives. The only way to challenge that argument would be to show an alternative. It should already be a widely accepted consensus that no one would use an atomic bomb if he or she doesn’t need to. And not surprisingly, an alternative does exist… although unfortunately in form of the USSR. This shaky relationship of mistrust between the Allies existed all the way from the beginning, and there was apparently no reason for the Americans to break the “cold” barrier now. (Hehe, get it?) As the Germans were already defeated, the Soviets would be able to direct a large portion of the army into Asia, and they were perhaps the biggest force to be reckoned with. Let battle-hardened Russians fight the battle-hardened Japanese, and Stalin would achieve victory with sheer number, resources, and force. That’s not to say that much effort was required, as the US were already able to drop napalms all the way to Japan. Indiscriminate bombing were common throughout WWII and generally frowned upon. Those alone easily killed more than the two atomic bombs, but the mighty nukes were no exceptions to indiscriminate bombing. Back to the USSR, some evidence revealed that Japan would absolutely surrender if the Soviets joined the fight. It should be understood that all their glorious sacrifices were made for their emperor, and they would definitely not want to lose him now. Perhaps the Americans might spare him, but the Russians had a good record with killing Tsars (or at least one). Japan actually may have wanted to surrender already, as many sane people would also choose the same. However, the US wanted an unconditional surrender. They may not have mentioned it, but the Japanese took no risks in preserving the emperor. The Russians would drive them to an unconditional surrender, and perhaps the emperor would still have a chance. The USSR was also promised Manchuria if they helped fight Japan. To please their anti-Communist meter, the Americans decided to end the war as soon as possible without the help of Russians. As they were already dropping napalms over Japan, it was time to select the biggest, baddest bombs. Noting that Japan would surrender either with an invasion from the Soviets or a condition for preserving the emperor, the US went ahead and dropped the first one anyways. The US in fact tried their best to keep the Soviets away from this. After the first drop, Japan did not surrender due to their zealous love towards the emperor. However, evidence revealed that it was possible that they weren’t all that bothered by the atomic bomb. With all their worry of Russians, there was not one single talk of that mushroom cloud over the horizon. If the lives of thousands didn’t matter to the Japanese strength determination, then it was probably unnecessary for the bomb to be dropped. They went ahead and dropped the second one. The Soviets then invaded Manchuria and Japan surrendered. Stalin also displayed interest in these cool, new bombs that the Americans had…

 

So perhaps things could’ve been worse. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of American lives would’ve been lost, but it was difficult to put trust in the unexplained estimates of the casualties. President Truman defended such with a few hundred thousand possible casualties all the way to a million by the end of the decade, in what seemed like a desperate attempt to save face. Recent documents then showed that the Americans developed the bombs only to intimidate and oppose the Russians. The Russians then went ahead and built more for mighty Stalin. But even if the costs of an invasion may be high, the rivalry between the Americans and Russians blocked a perfect alternative. Had the Americans allowed Russia to invade, causing Japan to surrender, they would’ve saved two atomic bombs. They might even be able to keep the development of those weapons in secret, giving them leverage later in the Cold War. Being a victim of an atomic bomb was terrible. These actions displayed some of the US’s first cruelties in other nations for another “greater” cause, usually against Communism. From a moral standpoint, no war or actions of war is justified. From the same standpoint, choosing to drop two atomic bombs over a more passive alternative is also wrong. The calculations given by Truman were difficult to trust. The nukes were not necessary to end the war. Terrible deaths and generations of defects could’ve been prevented. The two atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified.