Hey Folks,
In august of 1945, we as a species entered into a new age.
In many ways we achieved technological miracles orders of magnitude greater than our ancestors could ever imagine.
We are also now living in the only period in our species’ history where it is actually possible that we could destroy all life on earth by our own hands.
On August 6, the United States used an atomic weapon on the Japanese city of Hiroshima killing tens of thousands.
And just 3 days later, they used another on Nagasaki adding thousands to the death toll.
From the moment those bombs were detonated, historians, ethicists, and many others have debated: was it justified?
Throughout 1945, the allied forces in the war were preparing for a bloody and costly invasion of mainland Japan.
Through firebombing campaigns, the United States demolished entire cities which were made primarily of wood.
Over in Europe, the Germans were surrendering and ending the Second World War’s European front.
In response, the Americans insisted Japan also unconditionally surrender.
The Japanese refused, and the war in the Pacific continued.
In July of 1945, the secret American Nuclear program, known as the Manhattan Project, detonated the first successful atomic explosion over New Mexico.
Soon, they began retrofitting a Boeing B-29 to deliver these new weapons.
On August 6th, the first bomb nicknamed Little Boy was detonated over the city of Hiroshima causing unimaginable destruction.
US president, Harry Truman demanded a surrender, telling the Japanese to “expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.”
When they hadn’t surrendered after 3 short days, a second bomb nicknamed Fat Man was dropped over the city of Nagasaki.
Those two bombs together killed between 90,000 and 146,000 people.
Some literally disintegrated instantly, their shadows permanently burned into concrete.
Many who survived the attacks carried heavy burns, developed radiation sickness, and later cancer.
On August 8th, the Soviet Union joined the fight against Japan and on the 15th, Japan’s emperor announced their surrender.
“...the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives.
Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”
Those who justify the use of the atomic bombs rely on a number of key arguments.
The main one being that dropping these bombs would result in less American and Japanese deaths than an allied land invasion.
The US had a plan called operation downfall, but they anticipated a heavy cost to taking the Japanese mainland.
Their estimates ranged from 250,000 to a million dead.
They expected such high casualties because other major battles against the Japanese on Pacific Islands, such as Iwo Jima came a huge cost.
Japanese troops were known to fight to the death, or committed ritual suicide rather than be taken prisoner.
This dark math would have desensitized the allies to the loss of life in the use of atomic bombs.
Choosing to use an atomic bomb over a bloody land battle represents the darkest solution to a real life trolley problem that anyone had ever proposed.
Supporters also believe that using the bombs saved lives by shortening the war.
Between 1 and 200,000 people in China had already died fighting the Japanese.
Asian countries reported tens of thousand of dead per month.
In fact, 350,000 had died in incendiary bombing raids of Japanese cities.
In short, a lot of people were dying really fast.
Supporters also point out that Japan had mobilized 90% of its economy to the war effort.
And, so, were radically prepared for invasion.
They were allegedly training militias to defend against an attack.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hubs of military construction and the conversion of civilian infrastructure to war was the US’s justification for choosing to bomb civilian targets.
Other historians point to Japan’s “warrior culture” as a reason that there needed to be a drastic motion to push them to surrender.
In spite of the arguments in favor of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many others have criticized this use of weapons of mass destruction against Japan.
The assistant secretary of state at the time thought that naval blockades and traditional bombardment would force Japan into surrendering.
There were signs that Japan was already looking for a way to get out of the war, pleading to the allied powers at various times.
And so, the secretary of state urged President Truman to warn Japan about the bomb first which could potentially make them surrender on intimidation alone.
Commanders such as Chester Nimitz, William Halsey Jr., and Curtis Lemay did not see it as militarily necessary.
Even some who supported the bombing of Hiroshima would argue that Nagasaki was not necessary.
In fact, Some historians such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa suggest that the surrender of Japan was actually due more to the Soviet Union joining the war, than the bombings.
Another argument by those that criticize the bombings is that they were, quite simply, a war crime, a crime against humanity, or state terrorism.
Eugene Wigner, Leo Szilard, and Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Franklin Roosevelt arguing just that.
Here’s a snippet:
“Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved:
Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs.
And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war.
Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?”
The Federal Council of Churches called it an irresponsible use of a terrible weapon.
And some called it the further dehumanization of the Japanese people motivated by racial hatred.
Some claim that the bomb’s use to push a Japanese surrender was intended to create a feeling of awe within the Japanese people.
But, historians like Michael Walzer have stripped away the euphemistic language and called it flat out terrorism, or state terrorism defined as the targeting of innocents for a political goal.
Many academics have supported this notion, including one of my favorite historians, Howard Zinn.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are definitely the definition of moral ambiguity.
However, I think these events show us the real value in history.
How we think through these issues speaks a lot to how we approach the problems of today and how we see these types of decisions.
I think the ethics of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki serve as a warning to us.
And while we might not have an answer as to whether they were justified, we gain a lot by just having the discussion.
I would urge you all to write some of the thoughts you have about this dilemma down below, and please be respectful to others.
If you’re interested in how a nuclear bomb works, my buddy over at Tell Me Why put together a great scientific explanation.
Be sure to check it out.
Like and share to help improve history education online, and of course subscribe for more Step Back.