The Use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan: Great or Grave
Advertisement
President Harry S. Trumans decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan to end W.W. II was the best choice out of the options he had. At the time, the pressure to end the war without U.S. bloodshed was mounting on President Truman. He believed a huge invasion of the mainland of Japan was the only alternative to using this weapon. With the world simply tired of this war, President Truman ordered atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan was the best, but not the only, alternative to a huge mainland invasion of Japan which may have cost the United States as much as one million lives.
Peter Kross, an expert of W.W II as he is the author of The Encyclopedia of World War II Spies believes that the use of the bomb as necessary to win the war. According to his article The Decision to Drop the Bomb, Kross writes:
American casualties on Iwo Jima had been high, and as the president considered his options, thousands more were dying in Okinawa. The Joint Chiefs projections on the number of casualties the United States would suffer in an invasion of the Home Islands were estimated to be 50,800 by D-day plus-30 alone. If the war continued into 1946, which was expected, casualties would rise to well in excess of 100,000. (Kross)
In Kross analysis, the importance of winning the war with the least American bloodshed was the most important debate the United States had. They knew that the Japanese would fight to the death, so it only added to the logical thinking behind using the atomic bomb. It has been documented how cruel and gruesome the Japanese treated the Americans. So, to end the war, the United States used a new, experimental weapon that made them the superpower they are today. However, the use of the atomic bomb is shrouded in conspiracy.
Many scholars believed that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan would lead to more uses of the bomb on other countries. This is what many scholars wrote during and after the bombings. Dr. Rudolph Winnacker, a member of the history departments of the Universities of Michigan and Nebraska, stated that he was against the use of the bomb. Winnacker asserts his position by quoting Albert Einstein:
Before the raid on Hiroshima, leading physicists urged the War Department not to use the bomb against defenseless women and children. The war could have been won without it. The decision was made in consideration of possible future loss of American livesand now we have to consider possible loss in future atomic bombings of millions of lives. The American decision may have been a fatal error, for men accustom themselves to thinking a weapon which was used once can be used again(Winnacker)
History has shown that this statement is inaccurate. The atomic bombings of Japan remain the only times a country has used an atomic bomb against another country. As Einstein says, President Truman made the decision to use the bomb to avoid the loss of more American lives. Because millions of more lives have not been taken due to other nuclear attacks, its safe to say it was a good decision at the time. In addition, Ellergy C. Stowell, author of The Laws of War and the Atomic Bomb writes that it is a false notion that war is supposed to be fair, and that the discovery of a new weapon shouldnt be regarded as an unfair or treacherous act. The simple truth is that during times of war, the country with the best technological and military will win. In W.W. II, this was the United States. Winnackers argument that the bomb wasnt necessary is incorrect and invalid. Peter Kross provides many details of the time, such as intercepted communications by the United States from Japan stating that Japan was moving many soldiers inland in anticipation of an attack. Albert Einstein gave the United States the information they needed in the late 1930s to develop the bomb before the Germans had any chance. And Stowell makes a great point that technological advantages are what makes a country stronger than the other. Overall, these arguments are stronger and better than Winnackers argument that Japan was going to surrender anyways.
Alvin Johnson, in Twaddle on the Atomic Bomb, writes
If it [the atomic bomb] does not deserve the credit for bringing Japan to her knees, that is only because the knees of Japan were already flexing under the overwhelming blows of non-atomic bomb power, non-atomic ships and guns and above all, non-atomic American soldiers. The fact remains that if German science had been six months ahead the outcome of the war would have been entirely different. You and I would have tasted the bitter bread of Nazi torture, unless a gentle atomic bomb had restored us to the eternal flux of the perishable atoms. Now this is an interested viewpoint. He is basically stating that, all in all, we (as in the United States) ended up in a great position. If we didnt develop the Atomic Bomb, a different country would have. And because we were and are the only country to use the bomb, we are the only ones that were able to prove the strength of the weapon (Johnson). Johnson also proves to be somewhat of a future reader. He writes, Under the atomic bomb there can be no war, as we have known it (Johnson). All the wars since W.W II have been very different, and careful in not using the atomic bomb. MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction, proved that we didnt use the bomb since W. W. II. Peter Kross states it the best, writing: |
|
|
|
Homepage
Art