Harry Truman Atomic Bomb Decision Reflective

The Reflective Essay
President Harry Truman's decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan during World War II
Introduction
The United States remains the only country in the world that has ever made use of an atomic weapon against another country during a war. In 1945 the U.S. bombed two Japanese cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki – in what effectively informed the surrender of Japan during World War II. It is important to note that over time, the use of an atomic bomb by the U.S. against Japan has been debated widely. Was the U.S. justified in the deployment of the atomic bombs? What escalated the wartime circumstances to dangerous levels, and could the massive devastation that came about as a consequence be prevented? These are some of the questions that scholars have grapples with on this front. This text revisits the debate and highlights President Harry Truman's decision to drop atomic the bombs on Japan.
Discussion
According to Takaki (1996), the U.S. commenced the development of atomic weapons in 1940. It was not until 1945 that an atomic device was tested at a New Mexico test site. The test was successful, effectively meaning that the U.S. was now armed with a bomb whose destructive force was devastating and unlike any explosive device developed thus far. It should be noted that at the time of the test, WWII was still ongoing. However, Germany had already been defeated by Allied forces, but despite indications of being vanquished in the long-term, Japan had decided to soldier on in the Pacific. In July 1945, Allied powers made a surrender demand to Japan which was promptly turned down (Takaki, 1996). It was clear that Japan had decided to fight to the bitter end. According to the National Park Service, which falls under the U.S. Department of the Interior, there were four decisions that President Truman had under the circumstances. The first decision was to continue pounding Japanese cities with conventional bombs (National Park Service, 2016). According to Miscamble (2011), General Douglas MacArthur, the Army Commander in Chief in the Pacific, was in favor of a sustained conventional bombing campaign in Japan. It is however important to note that although Japan would incur heavy losses in this sustained bombing campaign, the casualties on the U.S. side were also expected to be significant. According to the National Park Service (2016), as Truman quipped later on, “despite their heavy losses at Okinawa and the firebombing of Tokyo, the Japanese refused to surrender…” Meanwhile, casualties were piling up on both sides. It is highly unlikely that Japan would consider surrendering even after some heavy pounding by way of conventional bombing.
The second option available to President Truman was an invasion of Japan. Towards this end, “the United States could launch a traditional ground invasion of the Japanese home islands” (National Park Service, 2016). Like the conventional bombing campaign, this is an exercise that could have taken a lot of time and resources. Further, the number of U.S. casualties could have been very high. As a matter of fact, Truman was advised that such a move would most likely “be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population” (National Park Service, 2016). It should also be noted that given that Japan had so far refused to surrender despite there being clear signs of certain defeat in the long-term, there were no guarantees that ground invasion would motivate surrender. In that regard, therefore, this was largely an impractical option.
Third, President Truman also had the option of dropping the atomic bomb in an uninhabited or sparsely populated area (like an island) with the intention of demonstrating to Japan the utter devastation that they were likely to suffer were the U.S. to apply the atomic bomb option on a Japanese city (National Park Service, 2016). It could be argued that this could have perhaps motivated Japan to surrender. Although this appeared to be a viable option that would that had both visual and psychological aspects in seeking to frighten japan into surrender, there are a number of considerations that made this a largely ineffective move. For instance, there was no telling how long it would take for Japan to conduct an evaluation or assessment of the impact of such a bomb. Also, there were no guarantees that after the said assessments, Japan would simply surrender. Meanwhile, as the assessments continued, America would continue losing more of its people. Further, and perhaps most importantly, “there were only two bombs in existence at the time…was it worth it to expend 50% of the country’s atomic arsenal in a demonstration?” (National Park Service, 2016).
It is important to note that as president of the United States, Truman had a duty to protect the lives of those who had elected him to office – i.e. the American citizens. Towards this end, all the options highlighted above, save for the atomic bomb option, would have resulted in unnecessary utilization of resources and additional casualties on the American side. From a moral perspective, it could also be argued that there was a need to save Japanese lives (Wainstock, 1996). This is more so the case given that in essence, Japan was fighting a losing war. Although this appears to be an ironic argument in favor of the atomic bombing of Japan, it should be noted that was the war to continue, Japan could have suffered extreme casualties before they eventually surrendered or were totally vanquished. As a matter of fact, President Truman once observed that “the saturation bombing of Japan took much fiercer tolls and wrought far and away more havoc than the atomic bomb.  Far and away” (National Park Service, 2016). It, therefore, appears that the most rational decision was the one that would effectively shorten the war. This brings us to the fourth option available to President Truman.
Lastly, President Truman had the option of dropping an atomic bomb on a densely populated area of Japan so as to send a clear message to Japan and force the country to surrender – perhaps via the intervention of the emperor. Towards this end, “Truman and his advisors concluded that only bombing a city would make an adequate impression” (National Park Service, 2016). Once this decision was arrived at, key considerations were made with regard to the most appropriate city for this demonstration of might – with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being selected as the sites of utter destruction. The first atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima city on the 6th of August 1945, and eight days later, the second bomb was detonated over the city of Nagasaki, on 14th August 1945 (Wainstock, 1996).
Conclusion
It is clear that special considerations by President Truman led to the use of atomic weapons against Japan. It is important to note that from an ethical perspective, the decision by President Harry Truman to drop atomic the bombs on Japan was largely utilitarian. This is to say that the President’s decision was focused on the outcomes. In this case, using an atomic weapon against japan would have ‘produced the greatest good for the greatest number.’ Millions of lives were therefore lost so as to save tens of millions of lives from both sides, ensure that resources did not continue to be wasted on a war which had a definite outcome, and in the final analysis, shorten a mindless war.










References
Miscamble, W.D. (2011). The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs, and the Defeat of Japan. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
National Park Service (2016). Harry S Truman’s Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/articles/trumanatomicbomb.htm
Takaki, R. (1996). Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. New York, NY: Little Brown.
Wainstock, D. (1996). The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.