Was the Dropping of the Atomic Bombs Justifiable?

904 Words4 Pages
Was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan justifiable? In the May of 1945, Germany surrendered to the Allies and WW2 was coming to an end. However by August, Japan was still fighting, so the USA asked Japan to stop fighting or face ‘Total destruction’. Japan did not surrender, and on the 6th August USA dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, a Japanese City, killing 150,000. On August 9th, three days later, Japan still hadn’t said they surrendered and the USA dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, killing 50,000. The term justified in this context means the dropping of the bombs were reasonable and fair. Different views on the dropping of the atomic bombs exist because there are arguments for and against it. Someone’s interpretation and opinion is affected by factors like their age, country, family and peer’s views, and their own morals. I will be looking at two views: They are both justified, or that none are justified. “I always go back to Harry Truman: Should we drop an atomic bomb to save 100,000 lives? That's a hell of a decision to make.” ~ Lee Iacocca In my opinion both bombs are justifiable because America saved more lives- more people would have died in an invasion. Japan was not going to just surrender. The Japanese believe in fighting to the death. Japanese soldiers who returned home during the war were seen as cowards as they did not die for their country. Kamikaze planes show the Japanese would rather die than let the enemy win. “A Japanese soldier who refused to surrender after World War Two ended and spent 29 years in the jungle has died aged 91 in Tokyo.” ~ BBC News The only way to make Japan surrender was to use the atomic bombs. The examples of their past actions of never surrendering are strong evidence to support this claim. Add the fact that they were asked to surrender and did not makes a good point. The
Open Document