World War II was a war with heroics on countless sides, it was war where an evil regime was crushed by those who dared rage against the machine and the cogs that got it kick-started, but lest not forget it was a war full of controversy from the D-Day landings to the bombing of Dresden.

However with this aside, there’s one decision which perhaps proves most controversial, still to this day it is called a callous, vicious and a serious International crime based on vengeance and the want for genocide, but was it really justified? Can it be justified or is it an act that simply should have never taken place?

I am talking about Truman’s decision to release little boy on Hiroshima and fat man on Nagaski, the end of World War II and the birth of warfare like never encountered before, a weapon that could leave death and destruction of imaginable proportions.

I’ve always been fascinated as to why the United States dropped two of the fiercest of weapons onto Japan, and many people have their own opinions. A section of people say the United States did it to avenge the destruction of Pearl Harbour, people have said the United States used the two bombs to end the war and save countless American lives and other’s are even of the opinion that the United States simply dropped them to flex their military might and to show the world they were the most advanced nation in the world, a possible deterrent to any nation hoping to challenge the United States.

These opinions are feasible and hardly farcical, but I’ll anaylze the issues.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1186779

This website supports the usage of little boy and fat man stating that the United States was right to force Japan to submit and that the United States used the bombs to save the lives of their troops.

http://www.rateitall.com/t-1683-was-the-bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-justified.aspx

This website deals with a range of opinions, opinions ranging from strategic to ethical reasoning and none are wrong whatsoever, as opinions never are.

I won’t list anymore as I’m sure you’ll be able to find them if you search hard enough, I’ve read books condemning the actions of the United States and I’ve read a few books condoning the actions of the United States.

I’ve reached the opinion that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski was indeed justified and here are the reasons why I think this way:

Many people take the moral approach and allow sentiment to cloud their judgement with regards to war and people seem to believe that warfare should be ‘won’ through courage and each person fighting should be benevolent. However what people do not understand that there is nothing noble about warfare and the concept of warfare is not in the slightest bit fair or humane, the most ruthless force defeats the other. I used to believe that the United States were abhorrent for the usage of little boy and fat man, but after a long hard think which lasted several months and after reading both sides of the coin, I finally realised that I was wrong and Truman was indeed right to use these two bombs to end a destructive and pro-longed war. Could the United States really muscle the energy and strength to enter Japan at the cost of hundred of thousands of lives? With 20/20 hindsight they probably could have considering they firebombed a total of sixty six Japanese cities during the campaign.

It’s worth remembering that the Japanese were not innocent, the bombing of Pearl Harbour, Unit 137 and the introduction of Kamikaze styled attacks were as sickening as the atrocity of Dresden, and the Nazi Concentration camps. It’s also worth noting that Japan has never ever apologised for its atrocities in the World War II, especially the atrocities committed against Colonial soldiers and American Prisoners of War in Unit 137. I’ve read books on the Nazi Concentration camps and on Unit 137 and when a leading Nazi Concentration camp guard is sickening by the atrocities committed in Unit 137, you instantly know that the people who ran Unit 137 were inhumane and deserved little boy and fat man falling upon them. The rape of Nanking is a worthwhile read to those people who are ignorant to Japan’s atrocities.

One thing that seems to be overlooked is that the leaders of both sides, from Churchill to Stalin and from Hitler to Hiroshito knew the artillery the American’s had at their disposal and what is rarely mentioned is that after Little boy was dropped Truman gave Japan a total of three days to surrender. Japan spent those three days analyzing the ‘Potsdam Declaration’ and contemplating whether or not to accept this declaration whilst they were contemplating this, the Japanese were informed that Russia had just invaded Manchuria, and then the United States bombed Nagasaki a day after. People have said that the United States should have waited a week or two, but this is warfare, you never allow your counterpart to gather and regroup, it’s just not how the biology of warfare works.

The reason Nagasaki was bombed was because the Japanese people fought the war with honour for their country, for Hiroshito despite what they thought of their Government at the time, this honour for their country and in particular was utilized by the American’s when they helped the Japanese rebuild their country after World War II, a country which is now one of the most prosperous and enriched nations on earth.

Quote:

If anyone reading has access to The New Yorker archives, Murray Sayles wrote an fine article about the U.S. bombing of Japan (touching on the Allied bombing of Dresden, as well) in August 1995, on the fiftieth anniversary of the attacks. Most of the conventional wisdom about the end of the war in the Pacific was challenged in that article, and by others, following the release of Japanese state records. I couldn't find an online copy, but I did find an article that summarized some points here: Did the Atomic Bomb Really End the War? Scholarship about Japan’s decision to surrender can be divided into three phases. During the first twenty years after Hiroshima, historians and strategists rarely questioned the necessity of using the atomic bomb or the decisive role it played in bringing World War II to a close. In 1965, however, a revisionist school began examining the decision to use the bomb more closely, raising moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons and asking probing questions about the motives of U.S. leaders. They continued to believe, however, that the bomb was instrumental in ending the war. Since 1990 new scholarship, including recently declassiªed documents and extensive research into Japanese, Soviet, and U.S. archives, has led to new interpretations of Japan’s surrender. New questions have been raised about the centrality of nuclear weapons in coercing Japan to end the war. In particular, analysis of the strategic situation from a Japanese perspective has led some scholars to assert that the Soviet Union’s entry into the Pacific war may have been as important or even more important in coercing Japan’s leaders. ... In the summer of 1945, Japan’s leaders had two strategies for negotiating an end to World War II: to convince the Soviets (neutral at the time) to mediate, or to fight one last decisive battle that would inflict so many casualties that the United States would agree to more lenient terms. Both plans could still have succeeded after the bombing of Hiroshima; neither plan was possible once the Soviets invaded. From the Japanese perspective, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and other Japanese-held territory was the event that dramatically changed the strategic landscape and left Japan with no option but to surrender unconditionally. The Hiroshima bombing was simply an extension of an already fierce bombing campaign. ... The scale of the atomic bomb was not radically different. A single B-29bomber flying from U.S. bases in the Mariana Islands could, depending on the distance to the target city (as well as weather, attack altitude, and other factors), carry 8,000 to 10,000 pounds of bombs. A typical raid of 500 bombers, therefore, could deliver 4 to 5 kilotons of bombs to their targets. Since the Hiroshima bomb was the equivalent of 16 kilotons of TNT, the attack on Hiroshima was only three to four times as powerful as a typical conventional raid that summer. ... Beginning in March 1945, U.S. bombers had conducted a campaign of air attacks against Japanese cities that killed more than 330,000 civilians and wounded 472,000, made more than 8 million homeless, and burned more than 177 square miles of urban area. The extent of the campa