The Moral Debate: Atomic Bomb

1537 Words7 Pages
The Moral Debate: Dropping the Atomic Bomb On the morning of August 6, 1945, the Enola Gay, flew over the city of Hiroshima, Japan and dropped the first atomic bomb ever known to this world. The second bomb was dropped shortly afterwards in Nagasaki, Japan. For the United States government the project was a complete success. But for Japan, there were some devastating effects, such as the death of many people, atomic radiation, and the destruction of two cities. But the Atomic Bomb did end World War II, but it still instigated serious controversies concerning its power and destructive potential. Although it did much harm to Japan, in the long run it was deemed necessary, and has been justified in several different ways. Compared to other alternatives for ending the war, more lives were saved by dropping the two atomic bombs. It also helped to bring this horrid war to an end. Many Americans believe that the Japanese deserved to be bombed based on how they had previously treated the United States, which is another reason why it might have been justified. It was also a way for the United States to show the power and knowledge it possessed to the rest of the world. Devastating things came to be because of this monumental moment in history, but the debate is whether or not these horrible things were justified. It’s a matter of Machiavelli’s famous saying; does the end justify the means? For starters, fewer American soldiers and Japanese civilians died. About 150,000 civilians were killed because of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it has been estimated that the death toll would have been much higher if the U.S. had attacked on land; somewhere in between 1 to 2 million people. Japan did not seem about to surrender, so the alternative to ending the war was to attack Japan on land. This would have caused far more damage for Japan and the Allies that
Open Document