Why Is Hiroshima Bombing Justified

Dropping the Bomb The infamous bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is a highly controversial subject and many continue to debate about the event, over half a century after it occurred. In August of 1945, near the end of World War II, the US military dropped two atomic bombs over Japan, not only causing a mass of death and devastation, but it also induced the question- were dropping the bombs necessary and justified? Due to exaggerated statistics, and what students learn in textbooks, Americans are socialized into believing that dropping the bombs were necessary to ending the war. However, in reality, several reasons ranging from the fact that civilians outnumbered troops in the cities in which the bombs were dropped, to how Japan was willing to surrender to the US under conditions prove that to be untrue. The nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was both unjustified and unnecessary.
The majority of people residing in the cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, were citizens- not soldiers who were at war with the United States. Bill Dietrich, a Seattle Times staff reporter says “The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one..” (Dietrich, 12). Despite this, many, including US president Truman, argue that because of the dropping of the bombs, more lives ending up being saved overall. The article “The Decision to Drop the Bomb” from USHistory.org states that “Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well..” (12). Though, with World War II already nearing its end and indications of surrender by the Japanese, this claim is more than unlikely to be true. If a different decision or approach would have been made by the US, more lives, both American and Japanese, would have been saved and there could have been a less controversial ending to the