The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were significant events that ended World War II. On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb named “Little Boy” on Hiroshima. Three days later, on August 9, another bomb called “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki. These bombings resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 Japanese citizens. However, there are arguments for why the use of atomic bombs was necessary and ultimately beneficial. Some key questions around this topic include:
Why did the US decide to use the atomic bomb?
The main motivation for the US to use the atomic bombs was to force Japan’s unconditional surrender and end World War II quickly. The US anticipated that a land invasion of Japan would be incredibly costly in lives lost. They hoped the demonstration of a powerful new weapon would shock Japan into surrendering.
What were the alternatives to dropping the atomic bomb?
Rather than dropping the atomic bombs, the US could have continued conventional bombing and naval blockade of Japan. Or it could have pursued actions toward a negotiated surrender. However, there were concerns these approaches would lengthen the war and not persuade Japan to surrender.
Did the atomic bombs save lives in the long run?
Supporters of the decision argue many more lives were saved by ending the war swiftly, avoiding a bloody US invasion of mainland Japan. Though the loss of life at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was massive, some estimate far greater casualties could have resulted from prolonging the war.
Was the use of atomic weapons necessary?
Proponents believe that nothing less than the shock of atomic bombs would have induced Japan to surrender unconditionally. Japan was committed to fighting to the last, as evidenced by kamikaze attacks and efforts to mobilize the entire population to resist invasion. The bombs prevented far higher losses on both sides.
Was the bombing of civilians ethical?
The most common objection is that the deliberate targeting of civilians violates ethics and humanitarian law. Critics argue that atomic bombs could have been dropped in a way to minimize loss of civilian lives. Supporters respond that in total war all citizens contribute to the war effort.
Arguments That the Atomic Bombings Were Necessary
Here are some key arguments for why the atomic bombings were necessary:
They led to the immediate and unconditional surrender of Japan
The atomic bombings directly caused Emperor Hirohito to announce Japan’s surrender on August 15, 1945. Without the shock of the nuclear bombs, Japan likely would have continued fighting to the bitter end, as they showed willingness to do at Okinawa and other battles.
They saved many lives that would have been lost in an invasion of mainland Japan
A full-scale US invasion of Japan was planned for November 1945. The Japanese military was prepared to resist fiercely. This would have meant heavy casualties on both sides, with some estimates in the range of millions. The atomic bombs made invasion unnecessary.
Conventional bombings were insufficient to persuade Japan
The conventional bombing campaign against Japanese cities had been underway for months, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, yet Japan still refused to surrender. Clearly, something beyond previous methods was needed.
A naval blockade may have starved Japan but prolonged the war
Although a naval blockade could have crippled Japan’s economy and led to mass starvation, it was uncertain if it could quickly compel surrender. Japan could have held out for a long time, necessitating continued combat operations.
Attempts at negotiated surrender failed prior to the atomic bombings
Some argue the atomic bombs were unnecessary because Japan was ready to surrender. However, prior attempts to secure a negotiated surrender, such as at the Potsdam Conference, were rejected by Japanese leaders who vowed to fight to the death.
The bombs demonstrated US capabilities and served as a deterrent for years after
The atomic bombings showed the world the full extent of US military might. This likely factored into post-war geopolitics and discouraged other nations from directly confronting the US.
Perspectives Arguing the Bombings Were Unjustified
Despite the above arguments, there are also compelling reasons to question the morality and necessity of the atomic bombings:
The bombings deliberately targeted civilians indiscriminately
The most difficult issue ethically is that the atomic bombs caused massive civilian loss of life. The bombs made no distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Targeting civilians violates principles of non-maleficence.
Japan was essentially defeated and looking to negotiate terms of surrender
Historians such as Gar Alperovitz have argued that Japan was already militarily defeated by August 1945 and the bombings were not essential to winning the war. Rather, Japan was seeking acceptable surrender terms.
The Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 8 was the decisive factor leading Japan to surrender
Some scholars believe the Soviet entry into the Pacific War shocked Japan more than the atomic bombs. The bombs alone did not change Japan’s course, as evidenced by the days of delay before surrender.
The US rushed to use the bombs mainly to intimidate the Soviet Union
Critics like historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa contend the primary US motivation was not to defeat Japan, but to intimidate the Soviet Union by demonstrating destructive US capabilities. The timing and manner minimized Soviet influence.
Japan lacked nuclear weapons, making atomic bombs disproportionate and unjust
Philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe saw the bombings as unjustifiable because they caused disproportionate civilian harm to an essentially defenseless nation lacking any nuclear deterrent. They were used like “experiments on animals”.
Dropping atomic bombs was unnecessary to win the war and mainly to test their effects
Some historians state the real intention was to field test the atomic bombs under war conditions rather than any urgent military necessity. The Potsdam Declaration left room for Japanese surrender, showing a diplomatic solution was possible.
Ethical Analysis
The decision to use atomic bombs can be analyzed from the perspectives of various ethical frameworks:
Utilitarianism
Utilitarian ethics focuses on outcomes that maximize overall utility. In this view, minimizing total loss of life and suffering is paramount. Utilitarian defenders of the bombings argue they ultimately minimized casualties and suffering by swiftly ending the war. Critics counter that projections of casualties from invasion were inflated and alternatives such as blockade could have been pursued while sparing mass civilian loss of life.
Deontology
Deontological ethics focuses on principles and duties rather than outcomes. Deontologists object to the bombings based on the principle that targeting civilians is inherently wrong. They argue surrender could have been induced without targeting entire cities and civilian populations for indiscriminate destruction.
Rights ethics
Rights-based perspectives center on moral rights and their violation. Critics highlight the massive violation of Japanese civilians’ human right to life. They question whether any looming military threat can override civilians’ basic human rights.
Virtue ethics
Virtue ethics emphasizes moral character over rules. Critics argue the bombings reflected poor character and needless cruelty rather than courage and wisdom in the treatment of enemy civilians. They see the bombings as an attack on innocents that did not display proper virtues.
Just war theory
Just war theory outlines principles for conducting war morally. Relevant criteria include just cause, right intention, proportionality, and discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. Critics argue the bombings were out of proportion to Japan’s capacity to defend itself and did not discriminate between combatants and civilians, violating just war ethics.
Conclusion
The decision to use atomic weapons against Japan to end World War II continues to spark debate today. There are compelling arguments for why the bombings were militarily necessary to swiftly end the war and minimize overall loss of life. However, there are also strong ethical objections centered on the massive and disproportionate loss of civilian life, including women, children, and the elderly. The debate hinges on whether lives were truly saved by early termination of the war, as well as whether alternatives such as blockade and negotiated surrender were fully pursued prior to use of such deadly weapons. From an ethical standpoint, many critics judge the human costs to Japanese civilians to have been unjustifiably severe.