Was Hiroshima Bombing Justified

In the 1940s, the atomic bomb was undergoing development and in August of 1945, the first non-test atomic bomb was dropped by a U.S. B-29 bomber on the city of Hiroshima in Japan and another was dropped, 3 days later, in Nagasaki. Some justify the attack because it spared the lives of many American and Japanese soldiers that would have been lost in an invasion of Japan, which was the alternative to the bombings. However, the cons outweigh the pros: the bombs caused mass civilian casualties, broke international law, and was simply unnecessary and unethical. Therefore, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. One major reason the bombing were not justified is because they resulted in thousands of civilian casualties and …show more content…
In the opinion of the President’s Chief of Staff, the atomic bombs were “barbarous [and]... of no material assistance in the war against Japan” (Document 12). Post-Hiroshima, B-29 bombers dropped leaflets on the Japanese civilians urging them to surrender or another bomb would be dropped (Document 9). Not only was this decision strongly refuted by high-ranking government officials because of the frivolous reason for use, it was also considered completely unethical; even the execution of the request for surrender was unethical by dropping leaflets from places instead of using formal demands. Documents of atomic bomb survivors, including that of Yoshitaka Kawamoto, describe horrific sceneries of dead bodies and despair in a raw form (Document 4). Admiral Leahy also noted that the U.S. had “Adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages” (Document 12). Despite the clashing political and ethical views that arises from every national decision, it is irrefutable that the effects of the bombs were horrific and unethical to at least some degree. The atomic bomb attacks are simply not justified because of the extreme degree of unethical decisions