The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings were not Justified

Additionally, welcome to the site. Opening Argument: Firstly, I will clarify that it’s not exclusively the fact that at least over 130,00 innocent Japanese civilians were killed and countless ones injured during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks; but the factors surrounding the attacks and what could have been done to prevent them. This is what I will mainly highlight in my arguments[s]. Just a few months prior to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki attacks, World War Two was officially over in the rest of the world. The Japanese military—especially its naval fraction-- was effectively defeated and of no real threat to the U. S. Japan was a country with no allies or proper freedom to use its naval forces, thus rendering it logically implausible for Japan to successfully attempt an attack on America in the few months before the bombings. Moreover, cities all over Japan were enduring continuous attacks from U. S air forces. The U. S had the superior military and was fighting a dramatically weakened army, with no realistic prospect of actually winning the war. This provides just one reason on as to why the use of largely untested nuclear on two separate cities was not justified. Moreover, on the contrary to being dropped on specific military targets, something that would seemingly quicken the process of officially defeating Japan, the bombs were dropped directly into cities and among civilian populace. It was solders or those belonging to the Japanese army that were really hit, but civilians themselves. [1. ] . http://www.atomicarchive.com... This isn’t due to the use of human-shields either, once again: these were people merely going about their daily lives within the city and its surrounding area. One of the common beliefs in the U. S surrounding the bombings is that that Japan had explicitly refused to surrender and were prepared to not only continue the war—but actually launch a severe attack on America in someway. However, the Japanese Emperor Hirochito had made it clear that he was ready to surrender months prior to the attack; providing he could remain Japans leader and that Japan would be granted immunity from war crimes after it was over. One may presume that the nuclear attacks were still justified [on the basis that Japan had committed war crimes] but the U. S strangely decided to accept these terms after it bombed the two cities. Japan’s emperor could stay, and they would not be put on trial for war crimes. You essentially have the same outcome but at the cost of a significant number of lives and the nuclear destruction of two cities. [2. ] . http://www.takepart.com... Even the U. S Truman outlined in his journal that: "On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary of War Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people. " Regarding other forms of admittance, the The U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by president Truman to investigate air attacks made on Japan, concluded in its reported dated in July 1946: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. ” In addition, U. S general and future president Dwight Eisenhower was stated as saying: “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. ” Other prominent government officials who shared the same opinion include Herbert Hoover and Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew, who both stated respectively : “The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up,there would have been no occasion to drop the atomic bombs. ” And: “In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the retention of the dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the Japanese Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clear cut decision. If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the Pacific war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer. ” To give one final example, William D. Leahy, who served as Chief of Staff for the U. S government at the time, admitted: "It is my opinion that 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. ” [3. ] . http://www.globalresearch.ca... Now, seeing that it’s easily established that dropping nuclear bombs for the first time in history fulfilled no real military or political purpose; why did the U. S decide to go ahead with it? One major reason was that it wanted to “try out” nuclear and determine exactly what its effectiveness would be. So in essence, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were an experiment for the U. S—along with beginning its status as a world and military superpower, and one that wasn’t afraid to use such harsh methods against its enemies. To quote another U. S military figure at the time, Admiral William F. Halsey—who was a commander of the Third Fleet, publicly declared that the atomic bomb was used by scientists who had a “toy and they wanted to try it out” further adding, “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment , it was a mistake to ever drop it. ” What is for certain is that the U. S did not “need” to ever use nuclear against Japan in two of its key cities, the war between the two countries was essentially over and Japan had already stated that they would surrender to the U. S. Therefore, there was no valid justification for the bombings. Specifically if you’re going by the “justifications” and excuses that the U. S has purported over the years.