Is the Atomic Bomb Dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified?

Is the Atomic Bomb Dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified? Name Course Professor Institution Due Date Is the Atomic Bomb Dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified? Many questions have been asked, and debates have been had regarding the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People have said that the bombing of these two cities was justified while others have argued that it was not. The rift between the two sides continues as the world marks 74 years since the bombing. In the U.S., Moore (2005) notes that a majority of the U.S. citizens believed that the bombing was justified and that it helped to save lives and shorten the war. 85% of the U.S. citizens said that the bombing was justified in 1945. These people believed that the bombings had to happen for Japan to surrender and stop its attacks. However, as noted by Stokes (2015), this number has fallen to 56% with 34% saying that the bombing was not justified. In Japan, those who think the bombings were justified are quite a few with only 14% offering a positive response while 79% saying the bombings were not justified. This rift between those who believe the bombing was justified or not appears to be endless. The accounts of Paul Tibbets and Yoshitaka Kawamoto do shed light on the issue but leave one confused over which side or account appears to make more sense. This article, however, seeks to showcase that the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was indeed justified and helped to evade the prolonging of a costly and bloody war. First of all, it is crucial to ask what would have happened had the U.S. not dropped the bombs. It is widely known that the U.S.’s next move would have been to invade Japan given that the latter had refused to surrender. In an interview that was conducted after the bombing, a Japanese soldier notes that if the bombing had not happened, the U.S. would have tried to invade Japan. While conducting the interview, Compton (1946) asks whether the November 1st plan would have been repelled? In his response, the Japanese Army Officer says that “we would have kept fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated.” Compton offers an explanation here saying that by saying Japan would have been defeated, the army officer meant that Japan “would not have been disgraced by surrender.” However, at what cost would Japan’s resolve have been? The officer says that they would have fought until all Japanese were killed. This means that more people would have died as a result of the planned invasion and this further shows that the bombing helped save lives. Tibbets appears to echo the same sentiment noting that “by ending the war, we would save lives. That was my idea.” However, Kawamoto’s perspective begs the question at what cost because the aftermath of the bomb was horrific. As a survivor of the bombing, Kawamoto is bound to harbor the thought that the bombing was not justified. He saw the horrors of the aftermath and lost a friend. Tibbets, on the other hand, knew of the plans to invade and thus his perspective with regards to the bombing. In his account, he makes reference to this noting that he believes he saved lives. Secondly, the bombing is justified because Japan had not shown any inclination or hint that it would surrender. Japan had been losing and whether she would surrender was only a matter of time. However, Compton (1946) notes that Japan had been beaten in the “sense that the fortunes of war had turned against her.” However, Japan had not been beaten “in the sense that she was still fighting desperately and there was every reason to believe that she would continue to do so.” Up to this point, Japan had suffered more casualties than the U.S., but its resolve and resilience had prolonged the war. Prior to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki b...