by The droppings of the atomic warheads on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a common point of debate and discussion on whether or not they were justified. Because justification is quite arbitrary in how one defines justice, I will make the argument that the bombs, while perhaps not justified fully, were necessary in the long run. I’m not really a fan of people who say “the ends justify the means” since oftentimes it seems you could have reached the ends without such atrocious means, but in this case I argue that the end did justify the means. Technology, in this case especially, can result in terrifying new evolutions of warfare and destruction. Were nuclear warheads an overall good thing? I don’t particularly think so, but the creation was born of great need and responsibility.
Many argue that the bombs were overkill and that the large number of civilian casualties were a grave error in judgement. To understand the reasoning behind the decision to launch the nukes, one must look at the situation the war had created. The Japanese were consistently fighting to the end, refusing to give up even to the point of death. This led to a very slow and dangerous mission of island hopping to reach the mainland. After four years on this campaign the US had only reached the halfway point, with the difficulty of securing islands becoming harder and harder inland. The thought of having to continue this struggle to the end, and then having to somehow either get a surrender or defeat every single person in the country, was probably quite disheartening if not utterly hopeless. A blockade might have been an option, but aside from the logistics, many civilians would probably have died of starvation as a result. The second world war was a huge mess of death and terror, and on top of that the horrific war crimes were also on people’s minds. So, something more serious was needed.
People will, understandably, be horrified at the thought of all the civilians being wiped out in such a brutal way. But the firebombings of Tokyo also killed comparable numbers of innocent civilians, and that didn’t even sway Japan’s war effort much in the way of surrender. Not to mention that the effects of burning alive are also horrendous even when compared to radiation, yet people focus on the more attention-grabbing weapon. The atomic warhead targets were chosen to destroy Japan’s industrial war effort, not to kill as many civilians as possible. With such resistance to the surrender the US was hoping for, it seems quite unlikely any other show of force less powerful would have any effect. Upon realizing this, the plan to carry out the two bombings was laid out. Leaflets were dropped in Nagasaki and Hiroshima showing the destruction of the new bombs, but warnings were not exactly specific due to fear of counterattacks should too many details of the bombings to be revealed. Following the bombings, the absolute destruction and devastation of the initial explosion, along with the consequent radiation poisoning, shocked Japan and the rest of the world. Failing to secure the USSR in helping making an agreeable surrender, Japan would throw in its hat.
The bombings were in no way a purely heroic act lacking any downsides or mistakes. Several things could have been more morally acceptable, such as giving an actually informative warning before the nuclear strikes, or showing a demonstration of its power. But the risk of this one chance to end the war being thwarted also existed, and to be able to make such a difficult decision while keeping all of one’s humanity intact doesn’t seem possible with the information available at the time. The act of bringing terror to people’s hearts via the nuclear age surely had terrible consequences (like the cold war) but when looking at all the variables at play at the time, the bombings seem to have been the surest way to end the war effectively.