Was the Use of the Atomic Bombs by the United States Justified in 1945?

The decision to use atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 remains one of the most controversial episodes of the Second World War. The use of such powerful weapons, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, sparked debates about their necessity and morality. Richard B. Roberts, in his analysis for historical archives, presents a comprehensive argument regarding the justification or lack thereof for the use of these atomic bombs.

Evaluation of Post-War Assessments

The post-war assessment conducted by the United States government under Franklin D. Roosevelt's successor, President Harry S. Truman, offered a detailed examination of the factors leading up to the Japanese surrender. According to the survey, detailed investigations and testimonies from surviving Japanese leaders concluded that Japan was poised to surrender as early as November 1, 1945. Truman’s own testimony supports this view, as he noted, “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

Opinions of Military Advisors and War Theorists

The opinions of Truman’s Chief Military Advisor, among others, were uniformly against the necessity of using atomic weapons for military gain. The military advisor, a significant voice within the United States military, stated:

“The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.”

The National Museum of the U.S. Navy further emphasized the surprising indecisiveness of the Japanese military in its response to the atomic bombings. Although the bombings caused extensive destruction and significant loss of life, the museum notes that these events did not immediately change the mindset of the Japanese military. It wasn’t until the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that the Japanese began to reconsider their position.

Social and Strategic Context of the Decision

The social and strategic context of the decision to use the atomic bombs is crucial for understanding its justification. By early 1945, the war had turned decisively against Japan, leading to a more resolute defense of their territory. The tenacious defense at key battle sites such as Saipan, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima demonstrated the Japanese willingness to fight to the bitter end. As a result, both the Pentagon and the White House organized independent studies to estimate the casualty costs of an invasion of Japan's home islands.

These studies projected casualty figures ranging from two to six million American military deaths, with a prolonged struggle lasting until at least 1947. Additionally, by June 1945, war fatigue was evident in American society, whereas Japan remained a formidable threat due to its armed citizen militia and the planned withdrawal of the Kwantung army, a highly battle-hardened force of over two million soldiers.

Political and Ethical Considerations

The political and ethical considerations surrounding the decision are complex. The primary concern for President Truman and the U.S. government was the preservation of American lives. The prospect of a costly invasion, particularly if it prolonged the war and increased American casualties, was a significant factor in the decision to drop the atomic bombs. Given the historical context, the decision can be seen as strategically sound, as it ended the war without risking a major ground invasion.

Modern Perspectives on the Decision

Modern-day perspectives often criticize the decision, viewing it as morally reprehensible and unnecessarily violent. However, the decision should be evaluated based on the knowledge and context available at the time, rather than through the lens of contemporary ethical standards.

The decision to use the atomic bombs was a critical moment in history, and it has had a profound and lasting impact on the use of nuclear weapons. Despite the horrific aftermath and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the decision was made with the goal of saving millions of lives by avoiding a prolonged and brutal ground invasion. As Robert B. Roberts summarized in his analysis, “The decision to use nuclear weapons was the correct one to make in the circumstances, and it should not be judged in the light of modern-day ethics and sensibilities.”