Over time, various arguments have lost and gained backing since new evidence has been availed and new research has been carried out. A continuing and prime emphasis has remained to be part of the Hiroshima bombing on the surrender of Japan and the American justification for the bombing based on the premise that this bombing caused the surrender. The topic is the subject of both popular and scholarly arguments as revisionist historians evolve a number of arguments. Individuals who are against the Hiroshima intimidations allege it was inherently immoral, militarily gratuitous, a kind of state terrorism, and a war crime. Conventional bombings and naval blockades would have compelled Japan to surrender unconditionally. Besides, Japan was inspired to surrender following the USSR’s invasion of Japanese occupied areas such as Manchuria. On August 6th, 1945, a horrific event took place. The event is well known as the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, an event that would end and begin the suffering and pain of millions. Dropping of the bomb was carried out by the American B-29 bomber that was named Enola Gay, with the bomb given a code name “Little Boy.” The weapon caused about 200,000 instant deaths, and many people would die years later due to radiation. The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima is a debatable issue that has no wrong or right answer. The paper discusses a counterargument for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
Ethically wrong and unnecessary
Dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was at that time justified as being ethical to prevent more deaths of many Americans and bring rapid victory. Nevertheless, it is not moral to embrace the use of weapons with the knowledge that it destroys urban settings and kill noncombatants. It was not essential either since Japan had been finished militarily because the USSR had invaded Manchuria in March that year. Further urban destruction and blockade would have triggered a surrender by August or September with no need for the atomic bomb or the costly expected invasion. It would be prudent if I added that there existed a fine line between the conventional bombing and the atomic bomb, and for sure, the descriptions of Tokyo or Hamburg after conventional intimidation echo Hiroshima’s aftermath. Therefore, regarding Hiroshima as being a moral violation also condemns the campaign for firebombing that was indiscriminate and aimed at city centers. It is very easy to argue that I would have not ordered the Hiroshima bombing but embraced restraint if I had been in President Truman’s shoes. The British and Americans had prearranged the gas bombing of around seventeen major cities in Germany but never carried out the operation since the moral case relied on the Germans embracing the use of gas first. In this case, restraint was likely and the end of the conflict, maybe politically adequate.
Japan was on the verge of surrendering
It is prudent to mention here that it was a tragedy and a mistake that the atomic bomb was used on Hiroshima since it had little to do with the decision of Japan to surrender. Evidence has turned out to be overwhelming that it was USSR into war against Japan that enforced a surrender. However, understandably, the view is hard for the people of America to come to terms with. Of the leader of Japan, it was the armed ones thought out against noncombatant leaders close to the emperor and who were ready to surrender but with the condition that the emperor’s safety is guaranteed. The military argued that Japan would persuade the USSR to intercede on their behalf for better terms of surrender instead of unconditional surrender. Therefore the Japanese would carry on with the war until the allies accepted the terms. But, the moment the USSR entered the war against them, the Japanese army lacked arguments for prolongation and feared that the USSR would occupy important parts of Northern Japan. Based on this, President Truman would have waited for the USSR to enter this was though it was apparent he never wanted the USSR to claim its participation in occupying Japan.
On the other hand, another option would have ended the war before August. It was to clarify that the emperor of Japan could not be held responsible for war if he complied with the unconditional surrender policy. The American secretary had made this recommendation of war, but it was prohibited by James Byrnes, who was America’s secretary of state and a close advisor to President Truman. Besides, by bombarding Hiroshima with an atomic bomb, the U.S implied to the universe that it legitimized nuclear weapons for war. The Hiroshima bomb triggered the nuclear arms race and made it a very important source of nuclear production.
Better options were rejected for political reasons
Once a supporter of the argument that the Hiroshima bomb was needed, the more research I carry out, the more I get convinced that the bombardment was one of the severest war crimes ever committed by the United States of America. The effects of the radiation affect individuals who survived, and still, many people will suffer the effects of the radiation in the future. Some alternatives would have ended the war. For instance, the president of America would have requested Stalin to come and sign the Potsdam declaration where Britain, Nationalist China, and the USA demanded the surrender of Japan in July 1945. Individuals who drafted the declaration believed that in case the USSR joined the war during this time, it would compel the Japanese to surrender.
Nonetheless, President Truman deliberately ignored this option because some of his advisors, together with him, were apprehensive of the entry of the USSR. I’m afraid I have to disagree with revisionists who argue that President Truman used the Hiroshima bomb to intimidate the USSR. Still, I trust he used the bombardment to force the Japanese to surrender long before the Soviets entered the war. Another option was changing the demand for Japan’s unconditional surrender. Some advisors who were in the administration of President Truman favored letting the people of Japan maintain the emperor system to introduce moderates in the Japanese government to work towards ending the war. But, president Truman minded the American public view, which needed unconditional surrender to serve as revenge for the Japanese and Pearl Harbor atrocities. Knowing those atrocities, it is evident that Japan does not have any leg to stand onto when it gets to wicked acts of the war. Nevertheless, a single atrocity does not make the other right. To the best of my knowledge, this was one of the most righteous wars that the U.S has ever taken part in, and one can not still justify any means triumph a just war.
The choice of using a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima was intended to provoke the Japanese surrender through an overwhelming influence. Observations have proved that the event was war terrorism because it comprised of efforts to kill noncombatants in large figures that their country is compelled to submit. The bombardment of Hiroshima is a classic case since the interpretation of terrorism is based on the explanation of terrorism, which is “aiming people who are innocent to accomplish a political objective.” It is apparent that the Americans targeted Hiroshima for a psychological impact and to ensure the preliminary use of adequately tremendous force for the essence of the armament to be recognized internationally. Based on this, the aim was to generate fear for political reasons both beyond and Japan.
On the other hand, the incident gives the definition of terrorism to comprise acts which are done during wartimes and by that, it is worth mentioning that the Hiroshima bombing was an act of terrorism. Further, the Hiroshima bombing was not worth being termed as combat since the Americans aimed at unarmed civilians. Killing innocent noncombatants can be accepted under instances of ultimate emergency, but the circumstances of the war in Japan during the Hiroshima bombardment never constituted a “supreme emergency.”
Additionally, the Hiroshima atomic bombing is a type of terrorism, just like the Holocaust, Tokyo’s firebombing, and the Dresden firebombing. Indeed the Hiroshima bombardments as cases of state terrorism because it was intended to terrorize people by the use of mass slaughter as well as confront the leaders’ view of national obliteration. On the other hand, individuals who get murdered by terrorism are mostly the focus of the envisioned terror outcome, and by that, the Hiroshima nuclear bombing was planned as an appalling demonstration that was pointed at the administration of Japan and Stalin. Besides, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima acted as a forum to validate the new weapon in a very shocking manner, effectively at the USSR’s doorstep to formulate the post-war political field.
In August the year 1945, the L’Osservatore Romano newspaper showed regret that the inventors of the Hiroshima atomic bomb never destroyed the warhead for the benefit of humankind. The then Dean of St. Albans denied the use of St. Albans Abbey in hosting a prayer ceremony for the end of the war terming the use of nuclear armaments an act of unselective annihilation. On the other hand, the federal churches council wrote a report that was entitled the Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, which held that as believers from America, they were very sorry for the careless use of the nuclear bomb and they agreed that with whatsoever decision of the warfare principle, the bombardment of Hiroshima was ethically wrong. Even the chaplain of the bomber, Fr. George Zabelka, later renounced the bombardment after he visited the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings along with two other chaplains.
Continuation of previous behavior
Some discussion concerning the moral dimension of the atomic bombardment of Hiroshima is wrong-headed following the fact that the central moral choice had previously been made. In November of 1944, the American B-29s started their initial flammable bomb attacks on Tokyo. On March 9th, 1945, they started dropping masses of small flammable bombs that contained an old version of napalm on Tokyo’s population. Later, small fires spread, linked, and grow into a massive firestorm which sucked oxygen from the lower ambiance. The bombardment was an accomplishment to America because they murdered over 126,000 people in a single attack. America and the allies blew up Dresden and Hamburg in a similar manner. This was also done to Kobe, Osaka, Tokyo, and Nagoya on March 24th, 1945. The simple moral choice that the Americans needed to make during the combat was whether to violate by extensively attacking and terminating noncombatants, and the dilemma was resolved in the framework of conventional weaponry. Neither hesitation nor fanfare convoyed their decision. Indeed, the nuclear bombardment that was dropped in Hiroshima was far less lethal than the massive fire bombardment that the Americans used.
The war had brutalized the leadership of America, that burning a large number of noncombatants never posed any predicament by spring of the year 1945. Following the expected power of the nuclear bomb that was way less than the one of firebombing, nobody anticipated its small quantities would end the war. By the year 1945 June, mass destruction of noncombatants through strategic bombardments impressed Stimson as a moral problem. However, the feeling arose that he overlooked it, and in no big way it shape the use of atomic or conventional bombardments by the Americans. In fact, there was another trouble posed by the conventional bombardment, and it was their accomplishment, one that made human destruction undistinguishable in fact and the American military’s minds.
Bombing Hiroshima was a war crime
Several individuals and organizations have stood forward to criticize the Hiroshima Bombing, with many terming it as crimes against humankind, state terrorism, or war crimes. The early opponents of the bombing included Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, and Albert Einstein, who spurred the study of the first bomb in 1939. Many researchers who had worked on the explosive device opposed its use. Under the leadership of Dr. James Frank, alongside seven other experts, tabled a report which advised the president against using the weapon. The Atomic bomb was a war crime because it killed indiscriminately, killing the old and the young, noncombatant and combatants, men and women with no discrimination through the explosion’s atmospheric pressure and the resulting heat generated after it exploded. Besides, the bombardments comprised of the nasty effects that have ever been known by humankind. The terrorizing effects and cruelty of the Hiroshima atomic bomb surpassed gas or any other weaponry whose use is prohibited. The Hiroshima bomb massacred the old, children and women, burnt hospitals, schools, living quarters, Buddhist and Shinto temples. Therefore, the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima constituted a war crime against civilization and humanity.
As the first combat use of atomic weaponry, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was unnecessary because it represented the crossing of a vital barrier. It was apparent that the use of weaponry was the initial process of the destruction of humankind. Therefore, dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was unnecessary because it was a war crime and a crime against humankind. The use of atomic armaments that cause unselective mass killing that leave effects on the war survivors for many years is a defilement of the global law. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was not an exception.
Even though the Hiroshima bombarding does not meet the description of genocide, it was gratis at best and genocidal at its worst. We would extend the description of genocide to democide, which entails all key parts of deaths caused for the atomic bombarding. This is because democide comprises not just genocide but also the unwarranted murder of non-combatants in war to a level that is against the set rules of warfare. Based on this, Bombing Hiroshima using the nuclear bomb constituted a war crime therefore a democide. Elsewhere, the damage that was instigated by the nuclear bomb can be explained as unselective destruction of all forms of life as well as inflicting pain to the individuals who survived the incidents; thus, the use of the nuclear weaponry in the city of Hiroshima was unnecessary based on the rules and ideologies of the international philanthropic law that pertinent in fortified wars now that the bombing made noncombatants the main object of attack by means of atomic weaponry which lacked the ability to distinguish between military targets and civilians and subsequently instigated gratuitous suffering and pain to noncombatant survivors.
In a nutshell, based on what happened at Hiroshima, the Atomic bomb was not necessary because it was inherently immoral, militarily unnecessary, a kind of state terrorism, and a war crime. Conventional bombings and naval blockades would have compelled Japan to surrender unconditionally. Besides, Japan was inspired to surrender following the USSR’s invasion of Japanese occupied areas such as Manchuria. Even though the Hiroshima bombarding does not meet the explanation of genocide, it was gratis at best and genocidal at its worst. The atomic bomb was unnecessary because it killed indiscriminately the old and the young, noncombatant and combatants, men and women with no discrimination through the explosion’s atmospheric pressure and the resulting heat generated thereafter. The bombardments comprised the cruel effects that have never been known by humankind. Its terrorizing effects and cruelty surpassed gas or any other weaponry whose use is prohibited.
Harbour, Frances V. Thinking about international ethics: Moral theory and cases from American foreign policy. Routledge, 2019.
Sayyah, Shereen Salah. “Content Analysis of academic consensus in terrorism defini-tions; Chasing Ghosts in Ber-muda Triangle.” مجلة کلية الآداب. جامعة بني سويف 1, no. 44 (2017): 39-71.
Zinn, Howard. You can’t be neutral on a moving train: A personal history. Beacon Press, 2018.
Paradela-López, Miguel. “Self-help Test on Michael Walzer’s military intervention theory.” Co-herencia 16, no. 30 (2019): 327-354.
Falk, Richard A. On Nuclear Weapons: Denuclearization, Demilitarization and Disarmament: Selected Writings of Richard Falk. Cambridge University Press, 2019.