Was The Atomic Bombing Justified

Were the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary to save allied lives and to end Japan's threat to world peace? Did the resulting loss of life cost more than a deadly invasion of the Japanese mainland? In August 1945, the first dropping of atomic bombs in civilian areas of Japan killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Immediately following those bombings, Japan surrendered to the United States. The following essay summarizes the defense of the atomic bomb and its use, the arguments against the use of atomic weapons, and includes my personal opinion on the subject.

As the war with Germany grew closer to the end, the United States had their hands full with an increasingly effective war with Japan. The defeat of Japan became
Might the war have ended as soon, with less deaths on both sides, and before the Soviets had entered into northern Korea? Did the atomic bomb of Hiroshima scare the Soviets into putting their atomic bomb program into action? Did those events then lead directly to the later Korean War? Was an atomic precedent set, which would be hard to change in the future? The knowledge that the Soviets were about to declare war on Japan would have crushed any hope the Japanese had of negotiating peace terms through the Soviets. The nearing two war fronts would have disabused Japan's military forces. Japan's plan to piece together remaining forces against the predicted U.S. invasion was threatened. While it cannot be proven, officially allies of the U.S. had made sanctioned communication between Konoye, saying that Japan's time had completely run out due to the approaching threats of nuclear destruction and Soviet invasion. These allies believed that immediate surrender might mean the opportunity for the Emperor to retain his throne. There was a chance the Japanese people would have enlisted the Emperor to bring Japan to surrender by late July or early August of 1945. For these reasons many arguments have been made that the use of the atomic bomb were