Atomic Bomb Ethical Analysis

1513 Words 7 Pages
The Moral Dilemma that Harry Truman Faced in Using Atomic Bomb on the Empire of Japan
Introduction
The ethicality of Truman’s decision to use atomic bombs on the Empire of Japan is questionable because there were alternative ways to end the war. The speed with which the second bombing occurred is also questionable, considering that it occurred only three days after the first bombing. Some analysts suggest that the emperor was not allowed ample time to analyze the impact of the atomic bomb. Truman defended his decisions suggesting that the enemies had tried to develop a similar bomb and would not have hesitated to use it. The enemy had also treated American prisoners of war ruthlessly that they did not deserve better treatment. This paper
…show more content…
president who took over after Franklin Roosevelt died in April 1945, gives the point of view that he had to authorize the use of the atomic bomb(s) on the Empire of Japan to ensure a speedy surrender and prevent further American casualties in the Pacific War (Bernstein, 1998). Some analysts have also concluded that the use of the atomic bomb (A-bomb) probably saved the lives of Japanese as well. Kimura (2013) argues that it is a weak argument to claim that the bombing also helped prevent further casualties on the Japanese. The reason is that the A-bombs probably killed more Japanese than it had saved American soldiers from the planned Operation Olympic. Operation Olympic was an American invasion to occupy southern Kyushu (Kimura, 2013). The operation was planned to start in November 1945. Bernstein (1998) discusses that Truman must have felt the need to use the A-bombs before Operation Olympic could start. Following heavy casualties on the U.S. side after the attack on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the American President must have felt a need to prevent further casualties. Articles suggest that the most cited number of casualties prevented by using the bombs is about one million American soldiers (Bernstein, 1998; Kirstein, 2013). However, Bernstein (1998) and Kimura (2013) argue that the number was probably inflated after the war. Bernstein (1998) shows that there is a difference between the number given in an official meeting that was held on 18 June, 1945. …show more content…
For example, Kimura (2013) explains that the Acting Secretary of State at that time, Joseph C. Grew, had asked Truman to make the conditions for surrender more flexible to prevent prolonged war, but Truman felt that America had an upper hand and deserved a better deal. Russian participation would also have ended the war. Kirstein (2013) explains that it is possible that Truman was in a hurry to end the war to prevent sharing the proposed occupation with the Russians as they did in Germany. Gordin (2012) suggests that it may have been used to intimidate the Russians. Kirstein (2013), Miscamble (2008), and Kimura (2013) purport that the bomb had to be used because it was intended to be that way based on Roosevelt’s plan. Roosevelt had laid the ground that when the bomb has been made, then it had to be used upon the aggressor, which may appear unethical. Both leaders appeared to have been abhorred by the sudden attack of Pearl

Related Documents