I am finished reading my book essays for the bombing of Japan but thought I would search the net for various arguments. I came across this list here…my thoughts follow…

Why the bomb was needed or justified:

• The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan’s leadership to surrender.

This seems to be a valid point. No amount of destruction was leading to surrender. However, there were some who were pushing for surrender and for negotiations with the US. They were not being listened to, but with a demonstration of the destruction to come would they have been able to persuade negotiations?

• With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to “waste” one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.

This is where the moral issues comes into play. Innocent life was taken by the bombings. Preventing that loss does not seem like a “waste”.

• An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Probably. Another valid point.

• The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.

And there would not have been fall out to deal with. I am not familiar with the destruction of fire bombing, but understand it to be more than severe. It would not have been as bad as the use of atomic weapons. I wouldn’t think anyway. It really makes one think about the war tactics of today and decisions that are made to preserve civilian life.

• Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.

It certainly convinced the world of its horror. Some argued against the dropping of the bombs stating that they did not want the US to be remembered as the first to do so. It is likely that if the US had not been first to drop the bombs, they would have been the first to receive such an attack.

• The bomb’s use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.

I need more study before determining this to be certain. It is a good argument.

Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified:

• Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

Japan was not ready to call it quits. Some within the foreign ministry were pleading for negotiation, yet others were planning strategy even after the bombing of Hiroshima. There was no real desire to give up. The fighters were also determined. I can not imagine kamikaze Americans. We view human life very differently.

• American refusal to modify its “unconditional surrender” demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan’s resistance.

Truman declared only “unconditional surrender” would be accepted, and it was a rallying cry for the US. There were thoughts of modifying requirements and allowing the Imperial status to remain as a point of negotiation and appeasement. However, this would have caused Truman to go back on his own declaration.

• A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan’s leaders to quit without killing many people.

Wouldn’t there still be issues with radiation? I think life would have been taken still…but possibly not as many if detonated in the harbor. However, the destructive power of the A-bomb it would have still been bad.

• Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.

I agree to an extent. I think word travels pretty fast in moments of devastation. However, it is also documented that Japan was still not backing down after Hiroshima.

• The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

That is a poor justification for taking innocent life. I would also add the possibility of military curiousity.

• The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

Hiroshima was the location of an army depot but had limited value outside of that. It was a good radar target with a size that would allow extensive damage. If it was to be an example then it was a “good” target to choose. However, the civilian argument is still present. At the beginning of WWII civilian attack was considered barbaric. As the war progressed such ideas changed. The psychological effects of the bombing were a factor in target choice as well. It was wanted that Japan would back down, and that the power of the A-bomb would be demonstrated to the world.

• Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Arguable point, but I’m not certain about the merit to it yet.

• Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.

Yes, and I addressed this in the pros for dropping the bomb. Area would have been destroyed but without the fall-out destruction. However, if the US had not been first. . .

This entry was posted on Friday, October 21st, 2005 at 9:49 PM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.