After the two atomic bombings, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki endured heavy losses. Firstly, the infrastructure of both cities were almost completely annihilated, where buildings and landmarks were wiped out and all that remained of the two cities were rubble and debris. Even more horrifying were the effects they had on the victims; almost 105,000 people were killed in total, and many of them were burned to death by the incredible force of the bombs. Those who did survive either died later on from the lasting effects of the radiation and had many health problems, or they spent the rest of their lives living with the wounds and scars of these events. Even those who were not directly affected by the bombing possibly bore the loss of a relative or close friend. Psychological problems were also a big negative after these bombings; not only did most of the victims end up with major mental deteriorations, but many had to go through the trauma after the event and face humiliation from the people around them.
I would side with the affirmative side, arguing that the bombings were justified. Why? For many reasons:
- The bombings were to prevent further losses on the American side, not that it wasn't a horrible thing to do, but I can see why it could be justified. General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50,000 American casualties and several times that number of Japanese casualties, and that is a much greater amount in comparison to the fatalities and casualties caused by the atomic bombs.
- The Japanese were not ready to surrender in any way. After the first atomic bombing, the Japanese remained relentless--this goes to show how determined they are in fighting in this war
- The Japanese were actually warned prior to the bombings, they just didn't heed them
- It was necessary to end the war, as it was the only way to get the emperor to intervene, who is arguably the biggest decision maker behind Japan's actions
Also, seeing that the Japanese were actually not ready to surrender in any way, this makes the opposing side's argument invalid, as the Japanese were clearly persistent with their "fighting-to-the-death" policy. On July 26, with the knowledge that the Los Alamos nuclear test had been successful, President Truman and the Allies issued a final ultimatum to Japan, known as the Potsdam Declaration (Truman was in Potsdam, Germany at the time). The document concluded with an ultimatum: "We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces…the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." The Japanese did not respond to this declaration.
Emperor Hirohito was never seen outside of his palace, however after the two bombings, he released a radio broadcast announcing complete surrender of all Japanese forces to the war. The mastermind behind this nation provided basis for all the Japanese's actions. As the people saw him as a living God, anything that he justified was automatically justified for them. They would do anything for the emperor, including risking their lives as seen in the policy of implementing kamikazes in the later part of the war. And so the atomic bombings would actually bring to the emperor's attention and lead him to end the war.
Despite the horrible aftereffects of the nuclear bombings, I still believe that it was justified for the Americans to drop the bombs. These were necessary actions to take in order to prevent further losses and shorten the war and scare the Japanese. Also, the Japanese actually were warned prior to the bombings of the possible devastations that could come to them if surrender were not issued. Historians arguing that the effects that the nuclear bombings were detrimental could be refuted by the fact that the Japanese committed multiple cases of atrocities that were absolutely horrible in Asia, in particular China and Korea. Therefore, I would argue that the dropping of Fat Man and Little Boy was justified, despite them being horrible actions that would seriously devastate Japan.