Did President Truman do the morally correct thing in deciding to drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities in order to end the war speedily? Why or why not?”
Specific Requirements: Minimum 500 words, APA format
No, there was no excuse for the US. Only War Secretary Henry Lewis Stimson was not certain that the bombs were needed to reduce the need for an invasion: "Japan had no allies; its fleet was nearly destroyed; its islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were suffering concentrated air strikes." The United States still had a lot of industrial resources to use against Japan, and thus it was largely defeated. Rear Admiral Tocshitane Takata acknowledged that the B-29s "were the greatest single element in forcing Japan's surrender," although Prince Konoye already believed Japan was defeated when he met Emperor Hirohito on 14 February 1945.
A combination of thoroughly bombing blockading cities economically dependent on foreign sources for food and raw materials, and the threat of Soviet entry into the war, would have been sufficient.
The bomb use recommendations show that the military was more interested in its devastating effect than in preparing for the invasion. We thus approved the destruction of hospitals and schools, etc. The United States was more interested in ending the war quickly and easily than in causing untold suffering. They had a weapon in their hands that could quickly bring the war to an end, and so they used it.
By causing maximum devastation, the atom bombs have achieved their desired effects. The Emperor's Gyokuon-hōsō speech was broadcast to the nation just six days after the Nagasaki bombing, detailing the Japanese surrender. The devastation caused by the bombs accelerated the surrender of Japan, which was the best solution for all parties. They would have been utterly pointless if the atomic bombs had not had the devastating effect they had. They replaced thousands of U.S. bombing missions needed to achieve the same effect of the two bombs that had the explosive power of 2,000 B-29s of payload individually. It unlocked money elsewhere that could be used for the war effort.
The price of keeping the U.S.S.R. in check was steep: the use of a mass destruction weapon which caused about 200,000 deaths (mostly civilians) and massive radiation suffering. However, within four years, it did not stop the USSR from creating the same weapon.
It could be argued that Japan virtually disappeared from the world stage after the bombings, while the U.S.S.R. regarded the bombing as an opportunity to procure the same arsenal to retaliate with equal force if the nuclear bomb was ever used again. Considering the tension between the two countries, a similar attack would have created a nuclear apocalypse with tens of thousands of civilian casualties.
If, as they had briefly considered, the USSR had organized a demonstration, the USSR would still have responded in the same way, while Japan–which had made clear openings for a (un)conditional surrender–might have been spared. In fact, by postponing the use of the bomb, researchers would have had time to understand the test results, which implies that further suffering could have been prevented, such as the Bikini Atoll[ a massive U.S. hydrogen bomb experiment in 1954 that had major consequences for the geology and natural environment and the health of those exposed to radiation].
Did President Truman do the morally correct thing in deciding to drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities in order to end th...