The justification of the bombing of Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) has been one of the most debated topics in the history of the United States. Proponents of the idea that the bombings were justified argue that the U.S President at the time, Harry S. Truman, had an obligation to promote the welfare of the United States. Those who believe that the bomb was justified argue that, when American lives are at risks, a president has a duty to end the war in any way that they possibly can. However, those in opposition argue that the United States killed civilians, and helped to usher in a new era of fear in war. I believe firmly that the latter, those who believe that the use of atomic weapons on civilians was an act that was unnecessary and unjustified,
…show more content…
The United States, in dropping the bomb, took civilian lives. Historical estimates cite that an upwards of 70,000 lives were taken by the first bomb, and over 30,000 by the second bomb. No matter what the threat was to the United States, the taking of civilian lives is wrong for two main reasons. First, the United States violated a universally understood international law through the killing of civilians. Although there were no formal laws regarding the use of atomic weaponry, it was well known that one of the obligations of war was to preserve civilian lives when at-all possible. Second, the bigger issue that can be linked to the U.S dropping of atomic bombs was how disproportional the response of an atomic bomb was to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. A major tenant of the argument for the justification of the atomic bombing of Japan is that it is a fair response to the United States’ being attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor. However, there is an incredibly important difference between these two acts of war. The main difference is that, while Pearl Harbor was an attack on the military of the United States, the population decimated by the atomic bombs of the United States was composed mainly of civilians. This marks a significant moral
The United States, in dropping the bomb, took civilian lives. Historical estimates cite that an upwards of 70,000 lives were taken by the first bomb, and over 30,000 by the second bomb. No matter what the threat was to the United States, the taking of civilian lives is wrong for two main reasons. First, the United States violated a universally understood international law through the killing of civilians. Although there were no formal laws regarding the use of atomic weaponry, it was well known that one of the obligations of war was to preserve civilian lives when at-all possible. Second, the bigger issue that can be linked to the U.S dropping of atomic bombs was how disproportional the response of an atomic bomb was to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. A major tenant of the argument for the justification of the atomic bombing of Japan is that it is a fair response to the United States’ being attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor. However, there is an incredibly important difference between these two acts of war. The main difference is that, while Pearl Harbor was an attack on the military of the United States, the population decimated by the atomic bombs of the United States was composed mainly of civilians. This marks a significant moral