What Were the Disadvantages of the Atomic Bombing of Japan? Essay

On August 6, 1945, an American B-29 bomber dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city Hiroshima. For the Americans, it was a ray of hope. Many believed that dropping the atomic bomb flashed a light and peace was secured. But for the people that were under the atomic bomb, it was a terror. A terror that no one had ever seen before. The atomic bombing directly killed more than 80,000 people in Hiroshima. Even more catastrophic were the atomic radiation related diseases that could not be cured. After four days of initial attack, the United States attacked again on Nagasaki and caused more destruction . After facing the atomic bombing on its cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan had to surrender. And by the time Japan surrendered, it was clear that the bombing was going to impact generations to come. And now almost after the 75 years of bombing, opinions about it are divided. Some believe that everything is fair in war. It was fair for the United States to bomb Japan because it was the only way to secure peace. While others believe that, there were ways in which the United States have dealt with Japan by causing less havoc. This paper focuses on analyzing such two sources that have different viewpoints on measure taken by the United States. The two articles that have different viewpoints are The atomic bombing of Hiroshima: A reasonable and just decision by Montaniel S. Navarro and Applying Taurek's 'Should the Numbers Count?' to (un)justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A combination of historiography and applied ethics by Dr Tits Kimura.

First article mentioned above works mainly to support how the decision taken by the United States was a reasonable one and the best one to promote peace. This article presents that President Harry Truman played the main role in decision making. So, the article's main goal is to evaluate President’s decision. There are two parts in the article, explaining why the decision was reasonable and why it was a just decision. The article points out that the decision taken by President was rational and sensible by providing the context of the situation. Also, to prove the decision was just it uses Just War Theory and state’s Right to Independence. Firstly, this article provides reasoning to understand how a responsible person should act according to the urgency and the context of the situation. The circumstances under which Truman had to take the decision of dropping the bomb is reasonable. It was during one of the most difficult periods of the history. After winning the war in Europe, the United States was preparing for the peaceful days to come. But Japan on the other hand was continuing with battles and gave no signs of surrendering. So, considering Japan’s hostile nature, President Truman’s decision to do what people of his country believed was a best choice seems rational. The article mentions certain elements of the Just War Theory like Just Cause, Competent authority, right intention, limited objectives, Last resort, discrimination, and proportionality. The bombing of Japan fulfills all these criteria to prove there was the justice of going to war and justice in wartime. It is because United States was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese forces prior to the American attack. Attack against Japan can be regarded as an act of self-defense. And because the attack against Japan met the criteria of proportionality and discrimination, Truman’s decision is regarded as just.

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

Place an order

The article Applying Taurek's 'Should the Numbers Count? challenges such viewpoint and implies that United States decision was not reasonable and just. Firstly, this article provides the moral justification because of which it may be thought that using atomic bomb seems reasonable. The moral reasons presented include the possibility of 25000-46000 Americans soldiers being killed. Also, the United States demanded an unconditional surrender from the Japanese side that could have possibly stopped the bombing. Japan’s decision meant that the United States should find other ways to end the war with less destruction of their soldiers. But while considering the options the United States could have become somewhat more flexible with the options. Instead of unconditional surrender, conditional surrender could have been presented as an option. After years of war, any country and its people will probably feel humiliating to surrender unconditionally. Secondly Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the ideal place to attack. The bombing could have been done in the military areas by harming a smaller number of civilians. Lastly, the number of people that were affected were too high. If the percentage of American soldiers killed and people killed during the atomic bombing are compared, the percentage of the latter one is very high. In such case, the author of the article counters the Taureks viewpoint of saving a smaller number of American people by risking a relatively large amount of Japanese lives. Also, the Japanese politicians were almost on their way to surrender unconditionally after the first attack. In this case, it can be inferred that second attack at Nagasaki was done to show how helpless Japanese were.

In the above articles, the viewpoint represents the two different groups of people. The first group of people are the ones that feel sympathy for the people harmed by the atomic bomb attack. The second viewpoint is mainly appreciated by the people that believe that there are no moral limitations during war and purpose of the war is to kill and to defeat the enemies by any means. The author of the first article belongs to Georgetown University from the United States.

The author seems to be a United States resident. So naturally, he may be expected to support the viewpoint to appreciate the steps taken by his countrymen in the past. Throughout the article, the author seems to understand the situation in which President Truman and the people of the United States were left. He also seems to point out the fact that the United States was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor. The author of the article presents his arguments to counter the people that point doubt on the decision made by President Truman.

The reality, however, is, as President Obama described, “no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy.” We can only hope that those individuals tasked with important decisions involving war and peace have the wisdom to differentiate between what should be done and what must be done, and when the situation requires it, the courage to do the latter.

The main reason for the author to prove the decision as reasonable is to imply that any other politician would have done the same in the situation that President Truman made the decisions. Author however is aware of the consequences of the atomic bombing. The author believes that peace can only be achieved with violence in certain conditions. In such condition author believes that violence will help to preserve peace.

On the other hand, the Tits Kumara, writer of the Applying Taurek's 'Should the Numbers Count? is a PHD candidate from Flinders University, Australia. He tries to justify that atomic bombing is not fair because the political fight between the countries causes the death of thousands of innocent civilians. He seems to be aware about the consequences of atomic bombing in the deeper level. The main goal of the author is to provide arguments to prove that there were possibilities for securing peace with less human destruction. And because the main target of the atomic bombs were the civilians, Author raises questions about morality.

In conclusion, World War II was one of the most complex time periods in history. While considering victims and casualties it is also necessary to remember the fact that both countries were the participants of the war. Analyzing such a complex part of history to determine right side may produce biased results. Both articles provide their reasons to support each side. Both articles agree that, atomic bombing is a serious issue. The destruction it caused have affected Hiroshima and Nagasaki for generations. From the articles, the readers have a better understanding of the consequences of the war and the use of the atomic bombs. As a result, they encourage future generations to not make such mistakes again.