Was The Atomic Bomb Justified Essay

835 Words4 Pages
In August of 1945 nuclear weapons were released upon the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Soon after Japan surrended, consequently ending WWII. But was dropping the bomb justified, or an immoral act? After the attack of Pearl Harbour in December of 1941 American military started work on the Manhattan project in secret. During the time of the development of the bomb president Roosevelt died, President Truman succeeded him and continued work on the atomic bomb. Even after facing massive conventional bombings and the capturing of surrounding islands the Japanese still refused to surrender. America issued Japan with the Potsdam proclamation, which demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan. This was rejected, as the Japanese were not prepared to give up their Emperor, as they believed him to be a god. Perhaps this led to the belief that the Japanese would not surrender unless dramatic action was taken. An invasion was most likely out of the question because the cost of lives, both American and Japanese, would be too high. At the beginning of WWII the bombing of civilians was considered a barbaric act. However as the war progressed both sides abandoned previous restraints, although international law had always distinguished between civilians and combatants. Prisoners of war captured by the Japanese…show more content…
The bomb at Hiroshima was in no way used to intimidate the Soviet Union or any ally but was only used as a means to an end. The Japanese had shown before that they were willing to fight to the death, we could not take the chance that they continued the war instead of surrendering. It was important to save as many American, Asian, and European lives as possible which would be hard to do while engaged in a war with Japan. Dropping the atomic bomb was only used as a military decision meant to assure japans
Open Document