Justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Destruction is part of human history and it dates back as far as mankind has existed on our planet. Violence, wars, battles, and death has followed man's every step. World War II is the prime example of how the civilized human kind collectively reached the greatest heights of senseless, mass destruction of its own members. World War II was more than a traditional war between enemy armies. It was also the systematic, pre-meditated eradication of harmless civilians. "The earlier moral insistence on noncombatant immunity crumbled during the savage war" (Berstein 140). We are frequently reminded of how Hitler's army slaughtered millions of Jew civilians and other innocent "undesirables" in concentration camps during the war. On the other hand, there is much less focus on the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. at the end of World War II, when the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on two Japanese cities - Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and three days later on Nagasaki, killing over 250,000 civilians. (Bernstein 1995) Countless publications have analyzed the weapons and techniques used during the war and they are very opinionated against or for the use of nuclear weapons. The debate is still ongoing. (Correll 1994) This essay investigates some of the most important historical events which forced the U. S. to develop and use the atomic bomb. The following questions will be answered. Why did America enter WWII? Why did America decide to use the atomic bomb against the Japanese? Did the Japanese culture and traditional fighting philosophy contribute to the decision to use the atomic bomb against the Japanese? What were the views of the scientists who worked on the development of the atomic bomb regarding its use? Could the bombing have been avoided? Human kind must learn from its violent past otherwise the devastation of our future is ahead of us.

America got drawn into WWII on December 7, 1941, when Japan unexpectedly attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor destroying or damaging twenty-one of the U.S. Pacific Fleet battleships and over three-hundred American aircrafts. The attack also killed 2403 soldiers and 68 civilians and wounded more than a thousand others. Americans called Japan's attack "sneaky" and dishonorable because Japan did not officially declare war on the U.S. before the bombing. (Wilson 2000) Japan entered the war against the U.S. because it was heavily dependent on outside sources for raw materials, minerals and petroleum to fuel its economy and it planned to free itself from Western economic domination. Japan had very ambitious plans to create a continental economic system - the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere -, also to embrace Korea, Indo-China, Malaya, and Indonesia. "In the summer of 1941, Japan had been at war on the mainland of Asia for four years. After amputating Manchuria from China in 1932, it had begun a full-scale brutal invasion of China" (Maechling 41). America disapproved of Japan's aggressive moves and imposed an embargo on the export of steel, scrap iron, aviation fuel, and oil and it also froze all Japanese assets in the U.S. by July 1941. The freezing of its assets and the oil embargo brought dismay and shock on Japan and this lead to the surprise attack of Pearl Harbor. (Maechling 2000) Since diplomacy obviously failed, the U.S. had no choice but to enter the war. Americans especially hated Japanese Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto who had planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. Modern day historians call Yamamoto the "Osama Bin Laden of WWII" (Haulman 2003). Yamamoto's plane was shot down by Americans over Bougainville in April 18, 1943, but his death did not make the pain go away over the American loss at Pearl Harbor.

According to Kagan's 1995 article titled Why America Dropped the Bomb there were multiple reasons to back up President Truman's difficult decision to use the weapon. One argument for the use of the bomb was that America wanted to end the war quickly "to avoid an invasion of Japan and the consequent loss of American lives" (Kagan 2), and because it was the "only way to avoid a quarter million...half million or...millions of casualties" (Gar 19). Indeed President Truman in his radio address on August 9, 1945 said that the United States had used the atomic bomb "to shorten the agony of war...to save the lives of thousand and thousand of young Americans" (Correll 7). Another reason for the use of the atomic bomb was the expected dramatic psychological effect not only on Japan but also on the Soviet Union. America wanted to demonstrate the devastating power of the new nuclear weapon and use it as "diplomatic offensive...their aim...was political, not military" (Kagan 2). According to another source, the atomic bombing turned out to be an inescapable event "The bomb's use was militarily necessary...perhaps inevitable because of the inherited technological, bureaucratic, and military momentum that built up during the war...because huge sums had been spent developing the weapon" (Gar 22). The development of the atomic bomb was financed from taxpayers' money "so much taxpayers' money has been invested in these Projects that the Congress and the American public will require a return for their money" (Compton 11). The American government wanted to prove that the spending "the project cost about $2 billion" (Bernstein 146) was necessary, justified, and a good investment. The American public had not been sympathetic to the Japanese because of the Japanese pre-war aggression against other nations and the "sneaky" attack on Pearl Harbor, and because of the mistreatment of the American prisoners of war. Americans "felt they [Japanese] deserved the atomic bomb" (Wallis 7). The Japanese were also easily dehumanized in the eyes of many Americans because of their different race. They seemed like "yellow subhumans to many rank-and-file American citizens and many of their leaders" (Berstein 140). However, probably the number one reason why America ended up using the atomic bomb and the main obstacle to surrender and peace was the continued Allied demand for unconditional surrender. (Gar, 1995)

To lose face was a fate worse than death for the Japanese. The culture of Japan is such that the people just cannot lose. They must win at all cost. The Japanese would rather face death than defeat. (Correll 1994) Furthermore, the Japanese considered themselves divine and unique. Purity became something profoundly Japanese and they believed the war would further purify Japan. "Japanese saw themselves not as stronger or smarter, but as more moral and pure" (Brcak 1). Surrender was dishonorable. Defeated Japanese leaders preferred to take their own lives in the painful samurai ritual of seppuku "who surrendered were not deemed worthy of regard or respect" (Correll 30). On June 8, 1945 the Japanese government formally affirmed its policy; "The nation would fight to the bitter end." At the time, war crime trials were about to begin in Germany and the idea that the [Japanese] emperor might be hanged was a possibility in case of an unconditional surrender. Because the "Japanese regarded the emperor...more like Jesus or the Buddha than an ordinary human being" (Gar 17) an unconditional Japanese surrender was not an option, and there was no alternative to annihilation and no prospect that the threat of absolute defeat would bring about capitulation. In addition, the Japanese military was strong and committed to full victory. According to Japanese War Minister Gen. Korechika Anami's statement at the time, the Japanese military could have committed 2.3 million troops and the military could have drafted more civilians (men from ages fifteen to sixty and women from seventeen to forty-five) to augment the troops. (Correll 1994) The historical facts support both Gar Alperovitz's and John Correll's postulation that the Japanese were unlikely to surrender unconditionally because of their cultural beliefs, military practice and traditional respect toward their emperor. Even after bombing Hiroshima on August 6, the Japanese refused to yield and the Minister of War General Korechika Anami denied that Hiroshima had been struck by an atomic bomb.

The scientist who worked on the development of the atomic bomb understood the devastating power of the new weapon. While they warned the government about the extreme danger of the use of atomic bomb in the war "grave danger for the safety of this country as well as for the future of all the other nations, of which the rest of mankind is unaware" (Compton 1). they were reluctant to take a firm position for or against the use of it. "We have, however, no claim to special competence in solving the political, social, and military problems" (Oppenheimer 1). Some scientists suggested only demonstrating the effect of the bomb during an experiment "before the eyes of representatives of all United Nations, on the desert or a barren island" (Compton 10) others insisted on its military application. "The opinions of our scientific colleagues on the initial use of these weapons are not unanimous: they range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of the military application best designed to induce surrender" (Oppenheimer 1). Some scientists wanted to outlaw the use of atomic weapons, others tried to emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use. "We can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring and end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use" (Oppenheimer 2). President Truman's secret diary suggests he made his decision to use the bomb as early as July 25, 1945 only a few days after he was told by scientists that the experiment at Alamogordo was a full success and that the atomic bomb is ready to be used. He notes "the weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10."and he also adds that the bomb "seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful" (Bernstein 34). Although President Harry S. Truman was presented with a number of alternatives other than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (further peace negotiations, continue the firebombing and blockade, invasion) he and his advisers decided to use the atomic bomb to force Japan to surrender. (Correll 1994.)

The consensus among most scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it "Bombing of Hiroshima was debatable and the bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary" (Gar 17). It is possible that if the creation of the atomic bomb had been delayed then President Truman would have changed the terms of the unconditional surrender and Japan would have surrendered if their emperor would have been allowed to remain as a leader. "The decision to delay assurances for the emperor had prolonged the war...the delay was caused by the decision to wait for the atomic test at Almagordo, New Mexico, on July 16 and then the bombs' use on Japan in early August" (Gar 21). According to Bernstein 1995 article The Atomic Bombing Reconsidered American leaders did not seek to avoid the use of the atomic bomb and did not pursue other alternatives like "modifying their unconditional surrender demand by guaranteeing the maintenance of the emperor, awaiting the Soviet entry into the war, or simply pursuing heavy conventional bombing of the cities" (Bernstein 148). These alternatives - promising the safety of the emperor, awaiting the Soviet's entry, and further conventional bombing - very possibly could have ended the war. The use of the atomic bomb was avoidable but "America was not morally unique - just technologically exceptional. Only it had the bomb, and so only it used it" (Bernstein 152).The above discussed articles suggest that President Truman and his advisors had a good opportunity to resolve the issues with the use of diplomacy but since they knew that the atomic bomb would be available soon they did not make every effort to negotiate peace. The terms of unconditional surrender could have been changed and the Japanese emperor's safety could have been warranted. Without establishing the Japanese emperor's future safety Japan was unable to surrender because of their cultural beliefs and military traditions. America seemed to prefer no further negotiations but to win the war against Japan quickly by overpowering Japan's military with a dramatic blow, by impressing Russia and the whole world with the new weapon, and by proving the American public that their taxpayers' dollar was very well spent. America also wanted make sure it can keep a leading role among the world's nations by showing that they have the ultimate weapon to resolve political conflict in case diplomacy would fail and they wanted to demonstrate the tremendous power which they were not afraid to use. It is clear that in the future the world should listen to Oppenheimer's petition which addressed the President on July 17, 1945. The atomic bomb "will provide nations with new means of destruction...and there is no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development...all the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation." Our generation should listen to Oppenheimer's words when we consider unleashing the power of the nuclear weaponry again to solve political problems in the future. Diplomacy should be the only way to resolve political problems among nations, because a nuclear war may be the last war for humankind on this planet.

Work Cited:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/hiroshima.htm

http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/mpmenu.asp