Morality
One of the biggest arguments I see is the question of morality in this situation. Regardless of whether you believe it ended the war or not, it still killed many innocent civilians. On Monday the 6th of August 1945, a little boy, the name of the nuclear weapon, was dropped on Hiroshima at 580 meters. The height at which the bomb was dropped is significant as this was done to maximize the destruction of the bomb (Cochran). [Change wording and get rid of the date, write a proper intro to morality]
In the 1980s a Harvard professor called Roger Fisher posed a question that instead of a briefcase containing the nuclear launch codes there should instead be carried in a capsule embedded near the heart of a volunteer (Ackland 11). In order to get these codes, this person would have to carry a heavy blade, so in an event of having to use nuclear weapons, the present would have to gouge out the hard to retrieve the codes. The purpose of this question is to argue that if a commander-in-chief is willing to kill thousands, possibly millions, what is the difference if he had to kill one more person? With this analogy we can see that killing a person like this is morally wrong as before killing thousands, the leader must first look at someone and realize what death is and what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. (Fisher). If we take a step back and look at this act in the normal world that you and I live in this would be considered murder but in the realm of geopolitics, this would simply be a necessary action to end a war.
Some historians argue that the use of the atomic bombs on Japan was completely inhumane because of the toxic radiation present in the bombs which made them fundamentally immoral. The creator of the bombs, Robert Oppenheimer, had made comments on the dangers of the bombs saying that The active material of the bomb itself is toxic. There are about 10,000,000,000 times as much toxic material initially in the bomb itself as needed for a single lethal dose. (historycruch.com) This memo shows us the severity of the bombs used on Japan. Contact with this level of radiation would immediately lead to death for anyone close to the initial blast. The injuries caused by the atomic blasts, like burns and radiation sickness, were beyond what is acceptable in a war. Therefore, it has been argued that the bombs were inhumane and should not have been used.
In order to grasp the full extent of the damages the bombs did we must look at some statistics On August 6th, 1945, Little Boy was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The bombing instantly killed 70,000 to 80,000 Japanese in the city and tens of thousands more due to radiation exposure. Three days later on August 9th, the United States dropped another atomic bomb, named the Fat Man, on the city of Nagasaki. The bombing of Nagasaki would kill another 40,000 people (historycruch.com). Besides killing all these people the atomic bombs caused massive destruction in both cities. A whopping 90% of Hiroshima was destroyed when the atomic bomb was dropped. Looking at the instances of kills is another but to delve deeper we must look at the long-term effects these bombs had on the civilians. For example, the water in the area had been contaminated and caused many people to die from radiation poisoning. These people would try to seek medical attention but this was almost impossible as the medical facilities had been destroyed in the blast (Douple). This example is significant because it illustrates that these atomic bombs do not just kill people in their initial blast. In fact, the worst part of these atomic bombs is the nuclear fallout that follows them. This activity demonstrates that the civilians are the ones who are the worst off after an atomic bomb. This clearly raises the question that the United States should not have used the atomic bombs for this reason and should have instead carried out smaller bombing raids that could more easily target specific military targets (Fisher).
Was the USA really out of options?
Was the USA really out of options is a question historians regularly ask themselves. Around July President Harry S Truman was notified of the success of the first atomic bomb calling it the most terrible bomb in the history of the world (National Park Service). Even when thinking like this Truman still thought that the only way to end the war was by using this bomb. However, President Truman had 4 possible options: 1) Bombing of Japanese cities; 2) Full-scale invasion of Japan; 3) the Demonstration of bombs on an unpopulated island to warn Japan of an upcoming attack; 4) Or drop on an inhabited city in Japan. Let's look at each of these options in more detail
Option 1: Conventional Bombing of the Japanese Home Islands
When the US entered they started bombing Japan from the beginning but only started in earnest in mid-1944. Only in one year, from April 1944-August 1945, an estimated 333,000 people were killed and a further half a million were wounded in the air raids. One of the most significant air raids was the firebombing attack on Tokyo in March 1945. This resulted in severe casualties and the Japanese capitol had almost all been destroyed but regardless the Japanese did not surrender (Pape 163). The firebombing of Tokyo was one of the most terrible things that ever happened, and they didn't surrender after that although Tokyo was almost completely destroyed. This implies that the Japanese would never surrender under normal warfare circumstances. Truman understood this and knew he would need to show more force for the Japanese to surrender.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Option 2: Ground Invasion of Japanese Home Islands
The US had thought of launching a ground invasion of the Japanese home islands. But the American government realized that the Japanese did not surrender easily and that they had made great sacrifices to defend the smallest islands. The US had already Faced pain on the battlefield resulting in lots of casualties. Truman was afraid that a full-scale invasion of Japan would be met by even more resistance and then result in more casualties. (Grimsley). Truman wrote My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a human feeling for the women and children of Japan. So by August Truman had realized that a ground invasion would lead to more American casualties.
Option 3: Demonstration of the Atomic Bomb on an Unpopulated Area
Another option that was suggested was to demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb to frighten the Japanese into surrendering. This idea actually was considered quite thorough as a target island was selected. But this idea did raise a few questions. The first question that was raised was who would Japan select to evaluate the demonstration and advise the government. A single scientist? A committee of politicians? How much time would elapse before Japan communicated its decision and how would that time be used? To prepare for more fighting? Would a nation surrender based on the opinion of a single person or a small group? (National Park Service). Secondly, the possibility of the bomb being a dud was a thought that was concerning for the Americans. The atomic bomb was a very new weapon that was not fully understood. Thirdly, at the time there were only two atomic bombs so it would have been very wasteful to use 50% of the atomic arsenal on a demonstration.
Option 4: Use of the Atomic Bomb on a Populated Area
The last option, and the one they chose. The US had concluded that the only way to make an adequate impression was to bomb a city. They knew that if they gave any advanced warning that it would put the bomber crews in danger because the Japanese would attempt to shoot them down. The reason why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen is that firstly they had to be a city that had not been too damaged by conventional bombing so that it could be said that all the damage was from the nuclear bomb. Secondly, the city must primarily be used as a military production. However, in Japan workers' homes were intermingled with the factories that produce weapons.
Did the US break International Law?
The Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 set the laws on what can and cannot happen in war. If we look at Article 26 states ‘The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.’ (INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS) From this article, we can clearly see that the US did not inform the Japanese of an attack. In one way this makes sense as if they had told the Japanese they would have done something to destroy the bomber crews. On the other hand, it does seem to violate this article as it says except in cases of assault it can be argued that it should not be called an assault but instead should be called an attack.
Secondly, Article 27 states In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand. This article clearly implies that nothing of historical importance should be damaged but the atomic bomb destroys everything even those not related to the war effort (think about hospitals, universities, high schools, primary schools, kindergartens, religious buildings, cultural landmarks, residential suburbs, etc). At least with the conventional bombing, bombers aim for specific military-related targets (like barracks, munitions factories, depots, etc)
To fully understand these laws we must look at the situation the US was in. In regards to Article 26, there was nothing the US could have done to abide by this law. If they did abide by this law the Japanese most likely would have been able to stop the attack. For Article 27 Truman stipulated it should not be a city of traditional cultural significance to Japan, such as Kyoto. Truman did not seek to destroy Japanese culture or people; the goal was to destroy Japan`s ability to make war. (National Park Service) We can clearly
Stuck on your essay?
