Justifying the Atomic Bombs

¶ … 1945, President Truman authorized the detonation of an atomic bomb comically nicknamed "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, Japan. Just three days later, the United States launched another atomic bomb called "Fat Man" on Nagasaki. About a week after the Nagasaki explosion, Japan surrendered and the Second World War officially came to an end. The two atomic bombs resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and many who did not instantly perish suffered long-term ill effects from radiation exposure. However gruesome and catastrophic the event, the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan is justifiable because it definitively ended a brutal and ongoing war and it also helped to solidify the United States as a global superpower dedicated to defeating nefarious states including the Soviet Union.

One of the most cogent reasons why the bombs were justified is rooted in the fact that the war had been dragging on and could have resulted in far more deaths -- civilian and military -- had Japan not surrendered when it did. Estimates of up to a million lives may have been saved due to the willingness to use the bomb at that specific juncture (Dahi). Alternative scenarios to the American bombing of Japan "would have probably turned out even worse," (Murray 1). As Mason points out, "the death toll on both sides was high, and the countries' negative view of one other became almost unbridgeable," (Mason 1). A drastic measure such as a weapon of mass destruction was the impetus needed to cease the senseless fighting. Moreover, Japan had committed wartime atrocities throughout the Pacific and its imperialistic intents were threatening to destabilize the entire region. The bomb has been well-known as "necessary to end the war," (Dahi 1).

A critical justification of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was America's need to counter the growing power of the Soviet Union and to become a global superpower. Mason points out that the most logical use of the bombs was "to keep the U.S.S.R. in check," as it had sought to bolster its anti-American allies around the world (1). The United States effectively used the bombs, thus proving its efficacy as a superpower and also the effectiveness of the technology itself (Dahi). Were it not for the dual bombings, the United States might not have achieved the unequivocal global superpower status it enjoyed throughout the twentieth century, enabling Europe and other parts of the free world to rebuild.

Counterarguments point to the ethics of the bombs, and to the potential for alternative solutions to the war. For example, the United States might have been able to make a similarly strong statement had the bombs been detonated in the middle of the ocean far from civilian populations (Dahi). Deliberately targeting unarmed and innocent civilians is an ethical infraction (Murray 1). Furthermore, there is some evidence to suggest that the bombs were unnecessary given that "almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed," (Weber 1). In fact, Weber points out that Japan had sought peace prior to the detonation of the bombs. These are all reasonable counterclaims, but the results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki do justify the use of the weapons. The weapons did achieve the ultimate goals of ending the war and enabling the United States to emerge as a superpower.