The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan

The use of atomic weapons has never been a clearly defined choice for any nation. Nuclear power yields destruction on a level that is virtually incomprehensible. Two single-warhead nuclear bombs were dropped on two cities in Japan, and those two cities were leveled. The Japanese had no choice but to completely and utterly surrender to the United States. Those two bombs ended a war — but at what cost?

The truth is that, on some level, the choice to bomb Japan and not Berlin was rooted in a virulent racism that coursed through the veins of the United States. People of Japanese descent had been rounded up and placed in internment camps throughout the U.S. They had been vilified and made the subject of cartoonish attacks upon not only their persons, but upon their entire culture. The Germans, however, did not receive the same treatment, nor did the Italians. "They" — the European enemies — were like "us" (Caucasian Americans of European descent), and therefore bombing them and destroying their entire cities would have been the equivalent of destroying ourselves. Nuking Germany was simply too close to home.

In the short term, dropping the bombs on Japan was the single most effective method available to hasten the end of the war in the Pacific, because the alternative was a land invasion of one of the most heavily fortified and fanatically defended territories in the conflict. Ironically, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the firebombing of Dresden, resulted in massive civilian casualties. Any weapon of mass destruction is not, by definition, a precise munition. Therefore, any use of such weapons comes with the absolute knowledge that the primary target is not military, but civilian in nature.

The decision by the United States to drop two nuclear bombs on Japan was at once military and political. The expected casualty numbers from a land invasion of the main islands of Japan were calculated to exceed thirty thousand American dead and wounded within just the first thirty days. No invasion force could withstand that level of casualties in a prolonged urban battle. The massive losses experienced during nearly every land engagement with Japanese forces made the prospect of such an invasion almost unthinkably costly.

Knowing this, President Truman had to make a choice. Subduing and neutralizing Japan was of the utmost importance — a negotiated treaty could simply not be signed, as unconditional surrender was Truman's objective, as it had been in Europe as well. The head of the snake had to be cut off. Therefore, the only acceptable outcome was the total surrender of both Japan and Germany. In Japan, the fleet necessary to mount a successful invasion would have dwarfed even the Normandy invasion, given the deep entrenchment of Japanese forces. Truman had the military power to order such an invasion, but the catastrophic human cost, heaped upon years of conflict already behind the nation, could not be reconciled with his conscience. Therefore, Truman sought the fastest and safest path — for American lives — out of the war with Japan: the nuclear bomb.

Truman's advisors clearly stated that the Japanese were without allies, had no reliable support system, possessed a nearly decimated navy and air force, and by the end of the war retained only a strong infantry presence on the main islands. It was also noted that Japan was particularly vulnerable to air attack and, because of the construction materials used in their cities, was especially susceptible to incendiary assault. It became absolutely clear that in order to demonstrate to Japan the futility of continuing to fight a war they had already lost, the nuclear option appeared to be the only one available.

The problem, however, with nuclear attacks is that they are not precise. Their very nature is to destroy massive swaths of land, buildings, and lives — not only in the moment of detonation, but for decades afterward through radioactive fallout. All of that was weighed in Truman's decision. Knowing full well that by ordering the bombings he was ordering the deaths of thousands — if not tens or hundreds of thousands — of innocent civilians, he made the order anyway. As he stated in an address to the men and women of the Manhattan Project: "Atomic bombs have now been successfully employed against the enemy. A grateful nation, hopeful that this new weapon will result in the saving of thousands of American lives, feels a deep sense of appreciation for your accomplishment" (Alperovitz, 515).

So, if a nation or military employs weapons of mass destruction, they are, arguably, specifically targeting civilians — the practice of which is exactly how "terrorism" is defined by the western world. This was not the first time that civilians had been specifically targeted by the military. Firebombing of Tokyo, London, Dresden, Berlin, and others had been ongoing since the war's beginnings. But the nuclear attacks were going to be different in scale and permanence.

The United States has chosen to define terrorism as an act of violence against civilians with the intent to change the political, military, social, economic, or other policy of a government or people. This definition implies that terrorists do not, by their nature, attack military targets — only those who cannot adequately defend themselves or mount a counterattack. This allows a relatively small number of people to create acts of violence with far-reaching consequences: small pebbles making very big waves.

The problem with this kind of framing — and the United States has been involved in this kind of operation for a very long time — is that it denies the defensive side adequate targets against which to seek retaliation. When a nation invades another, the enemy is clearly defined and the resulting military response is equally clearly justifiable. But when a small group of citizens of one country mounts a successful attack against another, is it the country, the people, or both that should bear the consequences? This is the central problem with defining terrorism in this manner, because, clearly, the United States committed acts of terrorism in dropping the bombs on Japan. The intent was to create destruction so horrific that the victims could not help but surrender — which is, of course, exactly what happened.