Nuclear Bombs Justified

When it comes to World War two, one controversial issue has always been the justification of the nuclear bomb dropping in the two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On the one hand, people with limited knowledge and a warped perspective on history argues that the two nuclear bombs dropped were not justified, and were quick and haste decisions in the White House. On the other hand, the logical and realistic audience contends that the bomb droppings were justified due to its effects in securing a fast and quick victory for World War Two. My own view on this issue is that dropping of the bombs on Japan was a necessary and wise action from Harry Truman since it was the only possible solution to end the war

Although I agree to the opposing party up to a point, I cannot accept their overall assumption that the nuclear bomb was more devastating in death toll than any other action that could have been taken. After constant bombing of Japan from American fighter planes, the entire land mass surrounded by the stone wall which was the naval blockade, and the death toll had reached three million. If no bomb was dropped the death toll would continue to rise as more as more Japanese succumbed to the stupidity of the Japanese government to fight on. In the end the total number of people who would continue to die in Japan if no nuclear bomb was dropped would significantly outweigh the millions that would continue to die with constant fighting. The next step after all the air raids and naval attack would mean an invasion of Japan, but that would not be possible for two reasons. One because of the prisoners of war that the Japanese were ready the execute in case the Allied Forces did decided to invade and two, this would create more fighting …show more content…
Nevertheless, those of the opposing party will probably dispute this claim by saying the United States broke off trade and froze Japanese assets by saying it was harmful to nations defence and interests which lead to the bombing of. But how can the bombing of a military base of a nation which had not deployed a single troop and had no interest to fight in the war be considered justified for cutting off trade (Rhetorical question)? If they had never touched America, there would have been no nuclear bombs dropped, and no intervention of American at all. Therefore the only blame they can put in is on …show more content…
No! There was no consideration of surrender, and there was no consideration (Anaphora) of all the millions of people that were suffering from the small drizzle of supplies that was able to go through the crack in the wall of the naval blockade, with the only idea in their head was the fight back. This is proven in the Japanese concept of Bushidō, which means to fight for your country, till you can't fight no more, and that no more, means death. Even after the two atomic bombs were dropped, the military generals still, wanted to continue to fighting. But it took the intervention of Emperor Hirohito to override all military decisions and to order surrender. The intervention of a Japanese Emperor was needed (Restatement) to completely null all military action, who in the time period never presided over issues and affairs to realize that the refusal to surrender would in turn, turn his nation into a