Zachary Lampman

INR 4104
Atomic Bomb
Was the U.S. Justified in Using Nuclear Weapons Against
Japan?
Yes, I believe the United States is justified in using nuclear
weapons against Japan. I believe that it was not only justified to the
United States; but also, to the International Community as a whole. I
have concluded this after much research and summed it up in four
specific examples of why it was justified; the examples go in
descending order of importance. First, American, Japanese, and
Russian lives were spared by the use of nuclear warfare. Second,
Japans military culture placed a specific challenge to fighting war with
them. Third, we had the weaponry at our disposal. And finally, we
gained international prestige and military dominance.
The biggest factor that played a role in deciding to drop the
bomb was the preservation of life. The United States had one policy
that was before the rest: to end the war with the least amount of
American causalities. The United States was war weary. They had been
fighting for four years and even been attacked within their own borders
at Pearl Harbor. Fighting another front was not something the U.S.
military or the civilian population wanted to see happen. We had seen
how ugly the fighting got with the battles at Okinawa and Iwo Jima and
the fearlessness of the kamikaze bombers. War need not last longer
than it had to. Operation Downfall was an option for the military, but
General MacArthur and the Joint Chief of Staff presented that an
amphibious invasion like we saw at Normandy would of cost an
estimate of a million causalities according to ushistory.org. In the
slides, from class it says that MacArthur suggested 105,000 battle
casualties for the Olympic campaign, Nimitz said 49,000 in the first
thirty days, and the Joint Chief of Staff estimated 193,500 in total
causalities plus 43,500 from Olympic and Coronet. These numbers
werent addressed to debate who is right or wrong, but rather to show
the comparison between what an amphibious operation would have
done compared to the bombs. The first bomb killed 70,000 and
100,000 more a year later from radiation poisoning. 170,000
causalities are significantly less than the total causality estimations
from either source. In fact the fire bombing of Japan that took place in
1944 took an estimation of 315,000 lives (100,000 just in Tokyo), so
why is the use of a nuclear weapon debated more extensively than a
continued campaign of firebombing? I believe the answer is because it
was done with one single bomb (if youre only considering Hiroshima.
This brings us to my other factors to why we used the bomb instead

of other means. Like I said, the preservation of life is the foremost, but
there are other factors that went into dropping the bomb.
One of these factors is Japans military culture. The Japanese
were known for the brutal military force. Not only in war with the
United States, but also in China and Korea. A book named the Rape of
Nanking by Iris Chang will give you nightmares after reading about
their atrocities. Japanese military also found suicide bombing a popular
alternative to surrender. Along with these unconventional military
tendencies, the military, along with its people, would never accept an
unconditional surrender. They would fight to the death or die trying.
Unfortunately for the United States, these unorthodox militants
dominated the majority of the Japanese government. With the
Japanese government being dominated by them, chances for
unconditional surrender was not probable. The destruction of many
Japanese cities and the sanctions put on them preventing them from
getting the resources they need; yet, their perseverance to continue on
with war proved this.
The third reason is because the United States had already gone
so deep with the Manhattan Project. To derail a multi-billion (billion
back in 1945) project would have been a poor use of funds and a direct
rejection of continuing Roosevelts administration, which is what
Truman set out to do after the in-office death of Roosevelt. Not to
mention, if word got out that Truman had a bomb that could of ended
the war without American casualties, the American public would have
been outraged.
The final point is more of a pro than a deciding factor, in my
opinion, but it was the increase prestige to the international
community and the military dominance of the United States. Some say
that the introduction of the bombs in Japan was the first shots of the
Cold War. The ability to drop the bomb, before the USSR, proved to the
Soviet that we had stronger military capabilities. At Potsdam, when
Truman told Stalin that the United States had just successfully tested a
weapon of unusual destructive force, it at first didnt seem to bother
him by the look on his face, but according to a soviet official at the
time, Stalin had been outraged that the Americans were able to reach
nuclear weaponry before the United States. This was a huge blow to
Stalin since soviet ideology was based on superior science capabilities.
If dropping the bomb on Japan prevented the USSR from engaging in
certain conflicts with the United States during the Cold War for fear of
not knowing what the United States was capable of, then this sure was
a pro to dropping the bombs because yet again it continued to
preserve life.

These four factors briefly explain why the United States decided
to drop the bomb. Preserving life, whether it is American or foreign,
was what drove Truman to give the order, but the competition of the
Japanese military, the possession of the capable weaponry, and the
added bonus of international prestige all continued to justify the
decision to drop the atomic bombs in Japan. My final thought on this
matter is that I think dropping two bombs rather than one is more
controversial than the actual action of dropping the bomb itself but
thats for another paper.