The saying goes: everything is valid in war. But in practice, where do we draw the line? Although this discussion applies to every single conflict, one that has opened the conversation is without a doubt the usage of the two atomic bombs deployed in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that brought World War II to an end.
The first bomb, cynically called ‘Little Boy,’ was dropped in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. It is estimated that it killed around 80,000 automatically and would reach 140,000 over the next few days due to radiation. On the morning of August 9, ‘Fat Man’ landed in Nagasaki, taking the lives of about 40,000, and destroying over a third of the city. Nagasaki was not the planned target.
The 10,000-pound plutonium bomb was going to be dropped in the city of Kokura, one of Japan’s largest arsenal bases. However, due to weather conditions, the crew decided to change the route to the next target on the list: Nagasaki. The question this raises is, was it necessary to drop another deadly weapon just a few days after the first one? Was not the message clear enough?
The excuse the American government made back then, and that is still supported, is that President Truman had no choice. Japan was not going to surrender; so to end the war and avoid many more deaths, a drastic but efficient tactic was made. Emperor Hirohito announced Japan’s surrender on August 15, thus ending one of the most devastating wars in history.
Now, one thing is true about the excuse; Japan was not known to be a nation that surrendered no matter the circumstances. As a matter of fact, before the bombs, in the past 2,600 years of Japanese history, there is not a single record of the nation surrendering in a war, and this resilience was what the American government feared the most at a moment when Japan was their last standing enemy. However, the question about dropping two atomic bombs as the only resource left is still dubious.
According to the government’s calculations, continuing the war would sum half a million casualties consequence of the next logical step: invading Japan. Besides the terrible life loss of war, the numbers would include starvation, estimating that the war would be prolonged to 1946.
Now, despite the probability of raising the death toll, it was likely that Japan would take it to the last consequences. It is even stated in lost documents of the time that Japan was willing to accept the deaths of up to 28 million civilians. However, there is also evidence that the government was trying to negotiate terms of surrender at some point. US Secretary of War, Henry Lewis Stimson, brought to the table an unconditional surrender that would have ended the war earlier that year, stating that the Emperor would not be held accountable for the war. It was immediately vetoed by the people next to President Truman.
The thing is this; as it happens with most political decisions, there are always many facts and interests behind, that are not publicly discussed. By the end of World War II, there were two major powers: the US and the USSR. Had the war continued, it was very likely that the Soviet Union would end up sending troops to Japan to occupy part of the island as they had done in Germany. That was inadmissible for the US.
There is also evidence that shows that the Japanese leaders were already in conversations with the Soviet authorities, way before the bombings, asking to mediate and reach peace negotiations with the US. But, as we saw, the American government was not willing to let the USSR mingle with the conflict and make the tensions, that would be known as the Cold War, even greater.
Now, going back to the moral justification of dropping not one but two devastating atomic bombs, it seems that even some of those involved in the Manhattan Project and the US government knew very well that the bombs had nothing to do with ending the war, as General Curtis LeMay stated to press later in September 1945. What did he mean?https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/leslie-groves-manhattan-project-history-oppenheimer/
The first option is that the second bomb was dropped to show the world (and the Soviets especially) the American power and the strength of their weapons, thus stating their supremacy. The other option was merely sinister. It is believed that since both bombs were different in design and components, the members of the Manhattan Project wanted to see if both of their creations were equally efficient.
One sure thing is that even when they did know the effects of both atomic bombs were going to be devastating, the American government did not anticipate the effects radiation would have on the Japanese population; effects that many are still suffering today. Yes, the Japanese government did terrible things, as well; but, dealing with atrocities with even greater ones is not the right way to do so.
Read more:
Hero or Criminal: The Life of Robert Oppenheimer, the ‘Father of the Atomic Bomb’