WAS IT MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE FOR TRUMAN TO USE TWO NUCLEAR WEAPONS AGAINST JAPAN DURING WWII?
WWII is still the most horrific war in the history of human existence. With over 50 million dead in just 6 short years, every single chapter of the war has been eternally marked in world history. Two particular incidents that will last over the years would be the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Now being considered in hindsight, the nuclear attacks have become very controversial topics. In my personal opinion, I believe that the bombings were absolutely atrocious, but I also think that the bombings were needed for WWII to truly end.
Supporters of Truman’s decision believe that the bombings were a reasonable second option compared to other choices available. Today, we know that the Japanese were fanatical fighters during the war. Surrender was out of question, and so when asked to do so by the Americans, they ignored the request. Instead they persisted with their fighting, and the war on the Pacific lasted almost 4 years. After witnessing the Japanese fight in the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it was clear that high casualties on both sides would’ve been the result of an American invasion of the Japanese main island of Kyushu. The Japanese would stop at nothing. They invented the Kamikaze, the point when one of their pilots would sacrifice himself by crashing his plane head on into Allied ships. The Japanese people were dedicated to their emperor; civilian men, women, and children would have courageously fought to the death had the time come. President Truman also had to consider the fact that estimates revealed at least 50-80% of the American soldiers that survived the war in Europe were expected to die in the invasion. He couldn’t put men, who had fought many years in Europe and survived, in the field only to have them die for nothing when there was another much easier option. After all, a war is a war; the laws of Right and Wrong don’t apply when...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document