Transcript Was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justifiable? Yes, it was justified: • Argument #1: Japan’s leaders refused to surrender Many believe.

Was the dropping of the atomic
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
justifiable?
Yes, it was justified:
• Argument #1:
Japan’s leaders refused to surrender
Many believe that the emperor of Japan,
Emperor Hirohito, would never have accepted
unconditional surrender. The war would have
continued on and on until the ultimate
devastating defeat of Japan.
Yes, it was justified:
• Argument #2:
Japan’s soldiers refused to surrender
Many believe that because of the fanaticism of the
Japanese militarism, soldiers would have fought
the war until bitter defeat. Examples such as
kamikaze dive bombers, the death rate at Iwo
Jima and Okinawa as well as the ritualistic suicide
of the Japanese known as seppuku.
Yes, it was justified:
• Argument #3:
Everyone in Japan was involved in the
war effort (total war)
Some may argue that the populations of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nearly all
civilian, however, all citizens of Japan worked
to aid the war effort in some way (total war)
and so it was justifiable to target them.
Yes, it was justified:
• Argument #4:
Bombings actually saved Japanese and
American lives
Some military experts at the time believed that it
would cost over 1 million American soldier’s lives
to invade and defeat Japan. They also estimate
that over 1 million civilians would have perished
during the invasion (Japanese propaganda
efforts).
Yes, it was justified:
• Argument #5:
No worse than then U.S. firebombing of
several Japanese cities in 1944-1945
More Japanese civilians died in the U.S.
firebombing campaigns of Japanese cities in
1944-1945. Since these raids used
conventional bombing methods, fewer people
argue the justification of these raids.
No, it was not justified:
• Argument #1:
The bombings killed innocent civilians
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had
very little if any strategic military value, the
vast majority of the population was civilian.
The method of targeting civilians in war is
unethical and morally wrong.
No, it was not justified:
• Argument #2:
Japan was already intending to surrender
The economy and fighting capacity of Japan was
utterly destroyed by August of 1945. Some
historians believe that the government of Japan
was preparing to surrender in early August. The
leadership knew that the war was basically over,
especially when the Soviet Union declared war on
Japan.
No, it was not justified:
• Argument #3:
Was used as a political weapon against Stalin
and the Soviets
President Truman and the U.S. government wanted
to scare the Soviets away from entering the war
in the Pacific against Japan. The use of the
atomic bombs ended the war and set the stages
for the Cold War. The killing of 400,000 civilians
to achieve this was unjustifiable.
No, it was not justified:
• Argument #4:
The “revenge” bombings were not proportional
to the destruction at Pearl Harbor
Many people may argue that the use of the atomic
bombs was justifiable because the Japanese “started
it,” at Pearl Harbor. However, others argue that the
killing of over 1,200, mostly military personnel, is not
proportional to the killing of 400,000 people, mostly
men, women and children.
No, it was not justified:
• Argument #5:
Other methods could have resulted in surrender
Some have argued that the United States could have used
the bomb in a less populated or even unpopulated area
and achieved the same results: surrender. The use of
the bombs on civilian targets was unnecessary and
unjustified, other options could have been used. This
method could have also had the same impact on
diplomatic relations with the Soviets.