Answer

The Atomic Bomb Discussion

A Summary of the Atomic Bomb Discussion

Discussions regarding the United States’ move to drop atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki often attract controversies in the public domain, mainly fueled by the sheer magnitude of destructions it had to the Japanese people.  It is difficult to find any justification for the bombing, which directly resulted in approximately 200,000 deaths. However, the U.S. decision to bomb the two Japanese cities carries significant political angulations, and theorists have tried to come up with views that either support the bombing or refute the action based on the destruction and loss of lives that it caused. This essay advances the argument that the United States cannot justify the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing.

The events leading to the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing present unobstructed views on why the United States didn’t need to conduct such a severe and destructive military action. The decision for the bombing can be described as immoral and unnecessary, viewed from the number of lives lost (Paterson, 1972). The Hiroshima atomic attack was informed by the need to protect Americans’ lives from the Japanese and the Soviet Union. The bombing’s primary goal was to achieve rapid victory against the United States’ adversaries in World War II. Although the action was necessary, looking at the civilian lives at stake could have informed the need to abort the mission. Notably, killing more than 200,000 civilians to protect Americans does not qualify to make any moral sense (Paterson, 1972). It is reported that the Japanese military had already been subdued and offered no threat to the United States.

Although arguments for the bombing suggest that it was necessary to contribute to the protection of lives in the United States and Asia, observations indicate that the bombings were fueled with political agitation rather than reason. Better options to neutralize Japanese military aggression were discarded, including engaging the Japanese government in a peace-driven negotiations. President Truman had the option of inviting Stalin to sign the Potsdam declaration and saved the lives of the civilians killed in the bombing. According to the Potsdam declaration, Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs was triggered by the need to scare the Soviet Union from joining the war. Yet, he had a viable option to deescalate loss of lives (Paterson, 1972). Another option that could have protected the civilians against the atomic bombing entailed the alteration of the demand for unconditional surrender. Truman rode on the American public opinion that demanded unconditional surrender as revenge against Pearl Harbor and the Japanese atrocities. Thus, Truman used the bombing to achieve political mileage in the United States at the expense of thousands of civilian lives in Japan (Sherwin,1995).

In conclusion, the United States’ use of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki aimed to establish a new political order. The imperatives of World War II were pegged at demonstrating the United States’ military strength against its primary adversary, the Soviet Union. As much as it was a way to avenge the American fallen soldiers, the U.S.’s primary goal seemed to focus on keeping the Soviet Union in check (Paterson, 1972). The United States wanted to demonstrate its military power, and it achieved that without considering the lives of civilians at stake. The strategy for the deployment of the bombs failed to recognize the destructions it would have to the innocent civilians, and the elements that make the military action unjustified. As such, it contradicted the appeal for the protection of human rights and the need to foster global peace.