The most powerful and destructive weapon known to man had finally been developed, the ‘atomic bomb,’ in one; the super-weapon. Truman insinuated this to Stalin at the Potsdam conference, but Stalin paid no particular interests because he already knew about the weapon because of his soviet spies working within the scheme.
Truman knew the war was won, with the Japanese air force and navy annihilated, and its people starving: ‘even in the imperial house there were only two sweet potatoes for lunch’, he could have used a conventional strategy in conquering Japan a ground invasion.
But on the 6th of August, 1945; Enola Gay a B-29 pilot, dropped the first atomic bomb ‘Little boy’ a uranium missile on Hiroshima and pioneered the nuclear age of warfare. Three days later, the US air force dropped another atomic warhead: ‘Fat man’ a plutonium missile on Nagasaki. On these two sombre days 240,000 civilians mostly women and children lost their lives. On August 14, 1945 .Japan surrendered unconditionally. It is interesting to mention that US forces were going to drop a third atomic bomb, but Truman decided not to, however some Japanese army officers still continued to fight, and ordinary civilians armed themselves with bamboo sticks waiting for American militants.
Furthermore, even in society today the question still crops up on the basis of moral evil or justification: ‘was the atomic bomb really needed’. In my opinion the President could have won the war fully without the use of atomic energy.
There are many justifications as to why the atomic bomb was dropped; primarily the US wanted to demonstrate its immense power and superiority to the USSR, its enemy and associate of war. Truman was also under vast pressure from the public as hatred for the ‘Japs,’ because of Pearl Harbour an unprovoked attack still ran rampage in the American publics eyes, many wanted vengeance for Pearl Harbour at whatever costs ;this term was mostly used by US soldiers during the war: ‘don’t forget Pearl Harbour’. Truman’s’ military advisers also discussed the high number of casualties and deaths that would be involved in bringing ‘Japan to her knees’. We must also take into account that Truman, was up for re-election, he had to please the public.
In this pretext, it does not appear warranted that the atomic bomb was at the US’s best interest. Admiral William D. Leaky, chief of staff to Harry S .Truman proclaimed that: "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." In this we must remember that it was a memoir published in 1950, although to some extent Admiral Leaky was right in mentioning that. There were several substitutes to considered, using the bomb in a non-combat demonstration that meant dropping the bomb in a deserted place where the Japanese could witness its power, change the U.S demand for unconditional surrender, allowing the entry of the soviets into the war, continuing conventional warfare and pursuing “Japanese peace feelers”. Another idea was to give Japan an advance warning of where the bomb was going was to be dropped so that they could move the population out of the area. If the Americans did not want more casualties, a similar demonstration of exploding an atomic bomb in Tokyo Harbour could have accomplished such results and might have pushed the Japanese to the point of surrender. Such revelations could have prevented the loss of thousands of lives, the needless loss of civilian lives greatly concerned American officials. Herbert Hoover wrote to army and navy journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, and mentioned "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
An additional alternative would be to alter the US demand for unconditional surrender. The US new this was a crucial point to the Japanese, who had been taught to idolise their emperor as a sacred figure, descended from the Sun Goddess. If the Japanese thought the emperor could stay on the throne, they might surrender; however the US did not idealise with these terms and thought that giving into these terms would make the Japanese fight for better terms. Peculiarly enough, after the war the Japanese were allowed to keep the emperor, as America developed its puppet government in Japan. Perhaps this was because America was not ready for the repercussions of Japanese fanatics just like they were not ready for the repercussions of Afghanistan insurgents. Another alternative for the US forces was to wait for the USSR to join the war; this would put tremendous strain on Japans military machine thus inevitably leading to surrender.
In my opinion I believe this was would have been one of the best alternatives, than using an atomic bomb. A final alternative could have been the continuance of conventional warfare. The United States could have continued the naval blockade of Japan. This would have caused Japan to run out of food and, ammunition, and other necessities and forced them to surrender. Moreover, the U.S. could have continued the conventional bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which had already destroyed 60 of Japan's cities. Lastly, the U.S. could have pursued Japanese peace feelers.
The U.S. could have tried to gain support of the Japanese who supported a piece campaign. Perhaps this alternative was not a strong enough reason as the others, because most people were afraid to speak of peace in Japan as army officials could have them assassinated.
Not only were these grounds concrete enough reasons not to use the atomic bomb, but the long term consequences of using the bomb-should have played a key decision maker- From Douglas P. Lackey account, the use of nuclear weapons had a negative effect on international relations. Political and military leaders wanted to posses’ nuclear weapons so that they would have more power. Lewis Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy James Forestall, said "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...."
After analysing the evidence it is clear to me that, that America had numerous reasons not to use the a-bomb. Moreover, the evidence to arrive at this conclusion is bias but still offers reliable evidence. It is my belief that the use of the atomic bomb to bring about the end of World War II was not entirely justified With the many alternatives that were at the United State's disposal and all of the effects that the use of such weapons had on both environment and people for instance from a Japanese account vomiting, loss of appetite, diarrhoea with large amounts of blood, purple spots on the skin, bleeding romm the mouth, death’, the U.S. motive for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justified, even though in all ,the atomic bomb did give the Japanese an excuse to surrender, and did ultimately play an important part in ending the war. . Dwight D. Eisenhower said in a meeting with Henry Stimson, Secretary of War during WW II, "... the Japanese were ready to surrender and it was not necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Furthermore the lack of Japanese supplies meant that surrender was inevitable. Here we can take that the United States only dropped the atomic bomb for their interests as a world power to demonstrate their supremacy.
