The Justification for the Use of Atomic Bombs on Japan
The question that most war historians ask is whether America had grounds to retaliate the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, considering the fact that they would be killing hundreds of innocent citizens in Japan. More importantly, the manner in which the retaliation was executed was rather controversial because of the use of atomic bombs on a mass of innocent people in the two cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The context of this discussion is both political and historical. For years, historians and politicians have debated on whether the United States’ leaders were right to drop nuclear warheads on Japan. On Sunday, December 7, 1941, President Roosevelt declared that since Japan provoked the US, it was a time that a state of warfare is declared on the Japanese Empire (Roosevelt 2). Therefore, my position is that the United States was justified to declare war on Japan, irrespective of the earlier diplomatic agreements between the two states.
The Options Considered Before Bombing Japan
According to Alperovitz, there were three possibilities that could be taken into consideration before bombing Japan and they included: Avoiding warring Japan and begin protracted discussions, capture Japanese Empire through conventional means or force Japan to surrender by dropping an atomic bomb (28). Firstly, the US would not use conventional weapons because they had not succeeded in doing the same in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Korea. Secondly, the option of threatening them to avoid war was out of questions because they were only a couple of nuclear warheads then and therefore the Japanese would not back down unless they would see the effects of the bomb. Thirdly, if the US would wait for the war to drag on and hold on for it to end peacefully, it would be too big of a human price to pay. An average of 4 million Indians had already died by 1943 (Wainstock 78). Moreover, lengthening the war would mean more people dying of hunger and sickness. Consequently, the compelling means of ending the war was by using atomic bombs (Wainstock 56).
Reducing Casualties and Ending the War
To respond to this argument, I believe that the US was soldiering to the darkest period of human history and thus, the administration had to assume a stance that would reduce the number of causalities by using atomic weapons. By 1945, the US had lost over 418,000 lives and 135,000 of those people were highly ranked military personnel (Alperovitz 67). Therefore, the country was ailing and this meant that a quick end to the World War would eliminate the suffering that the country was undergoing. Since the state weaponry had enough armor to bring the conflict to a quick end and they had to use them (Wainstock 49).
Achieving the Desired Effect and Establishing US Dominance
Equally, Takaki argues that declaring war on Japan achieved the desired effect because it caused maximum devastation which led to a detailed Japanese surrender (45). If the attack had no devastating effect, then the Japanese would regroup and hurt the US more. President Roosevelt in his 1941 speech states that Japanese forces attacked Guam, Philippine Islands, Wake Island and Midway Island (Roosevelt 3). These attacks were only done within one night. The question is what would have happened if the Japanese would have been left to commit their armies to attacking other US allies? Another reason that justifies the attacks was inadequate soldiers available to keep in check Japanese militias and at the same time retaliate against USSR’s forces (Takaki 50). During the warring period, geopolitics and revenge were expensive because most of the nations were behind by a few years in atomic-bomb research. Therefore, it was the perfect period to make a statement to the rest of the world on the effects of using a bomb during the war.
The Least Abhorrent Choice and the Benefits of Using Atomic Bombs
Admittedly, Alperovitz states that the attack certainly established US dominance over the rest of the nations (30). After World War II, the disparaging power that the States possessed meant that it continued to remain recognized as the world’s greatest power. Later in the century, President Ronald Reagan stated: While America’s military strength is important, the struggle now goes to the world that no other war will be decided by atomic bombs or rockets” (Reagan 50). Although it is inhuman and immoral to wish for civilian deaths, the determination to use an atomic bomb meant that civilian casualties were a small price to pay that would be acceptable to the USA (Reagan 56). Few actions in such a grand war are morally justifiable. All a commander in chief would do is to find a course of actions that would be likely to reduce civilian casualties. The decision of the President was mainly based on the death of almost half a million Americans and the ones that would die if they invaded the home of the Japanese after they attacked Hawaii.
The Immediate End of the War and Lessons on the Brutality of Nuclear Power
In comparison, the text by Wainstock is agreeable because I believe that dropping the bombs was the least abhorrent choice (15). A bloody invasion would have led to an even higher death toll. In fact, the bombing saved millions of lives in both Japan and Asia. President Truman’s other choice would be a campaign of blockades and bombardment and this would have killed even more civilians. The benefits of using nuclear warheads were the immediate end of the war, surrender of Japan in a conventional attack and it also ensured that the world learned a lesson on the brutality of nuclear power.
Works Cited
Alperovitz, Gar. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. S.I.: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2010. Internet resource.
Reagan, Ronald. The Great Communicator: Selected Speeches of President Ronald Reagan. St. Petersburg, Fla: Red and Black Publishers, 2010. Print.
Roosevelt, Frank D. Pearl Harbor Speech December 8 1941. The Times. 1941.
Takaki, Ronald T. Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb (pbk). Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co, 1996. Print.
Wainstock, Dennis. The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb. Westport: Praeger, 1996. Print.
