Introduction
America’s conclusion to drop the nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima during the war is still an issue of contention among historians. Though many believe that the bombs were necessary to quell and stop the war that had been going on for a long time as well as save the American and Japanese lives. In my opinion, it was not justifiable to use weaponry of such magnitude that for the most part targeted the civilians. This essay argues that it was not acceptable for the United States to target innocent civilians during the war hence the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justifiable.
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
To begin with, there were other alternatives that the Americans could have used to realize their mission. Surely, the atomic bombing of the two cities could not have been the only way to get the Japanese to surrender. The other ways that the United States could have attempted before dropping the bombs are that; they should have guaranteed the Japanese that their emperor would remain in power as it was so important to them, thus modifying their requirement of unconditioned surrender.
This is evidenced by the quotes of people such as Eisenhower who said, “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” Additionally, the United States could have carried further conventional bombing of the cities. These alternatives could have probably brought the war to an end (Tremblay).
The use of atomic bombs was something that could have been avoided, but instead of using diplomacy to resolve the issues, the American leaders preferred to speedily win the war to impress Russia and the rest of the world with their newly found weapon (Bernstein 142-143). Additionally, they also desired to prove to the American citizens that their taxpayers’ money was well spent. If indeed the Americans wanted to end the war then they should have dropped the bomb once and not twice. The bombings resulted in massive civilian fatal injuries and deaths which were not worth the price (Tremblay).
Furthermore, nuclear bombs have far many destructive effects than a mere conventional bomb and the United States should have considered this before using it. The radiation released from the bombs still causes problems for the Japanese to date. Many civilians lost their lives as a result of this exposure. Though it is claimed that many lives were saved due to the United States not invading Japan, it is not justifiable to let innocent civilians die of radiation sicknesses. Nobody deserves this kind of agonizing death caused by radiation. Generally, bombs of such magnitude should hardly be used (Bernstein 148-150).
Conclusion
In my opinion, putting innocent civilians to death with dreadful bombs to fulfill geopolitical goals is not a logical justification, regardless of how much sense it may have made from a military viewpoint. To prevent such an event from happening again in the future, the current generation should consider the use of negotiations in resolving a political conflict. It should be recognized that it is only legal if the military die in the battle and not non-military citizens, except when they are fighting back. The use of atomic bombs should be the last resort as it is fatal to humankind.
Works Cited
Bernstein, Barton. “The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered.” Foreign Affairs (1995): 135- 152.
Tremblay, Rodrigue. The Moral Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 2010. Web.