The Bombing of Hiroshima - Was it justified?

This blog was supposed to be published on 06.08.2024. Unfortunately, this was not possible due to time and personal reasons.

One of the two largest weapons of mass destruction was used 79 years ago. Three days later, another one was used.

To this day, these are the only uses of the atomic bomb - but they still leave their mark on us today.

In this blog, we will have a look on the first use of the nuclear bomb - the Bombing of Hiroshima - and if it was justified.

It's a quiet morning in Hiroshima. So far, Hiroshima has been spared from US air strikes. Shortly before eight o'clock, the Japanese military spots two foreign airplanes in the sky. In order to save fuel and airplanes, such small crews are no longer shielded.

But at 8:15 a bomb is dropped from the plane. About 45 seconds later, the bomb hits. 70,000 to 80,000 people are killed instantly. A new disease emerges: Acute radiation sickness. It is estimated that a total of 90,000 to 166,000 people die as a result.

After that, a new discussion is flared up.

The aim was to force Japan to surrender. A plan was the Operation Downfall. It was a plan to invade especially the mainland of Japan. Estimates for this operation show that there would be a lot more victims than with a nuclear bomb. The figures in relation:

Also supporters say the surrender of Japan (that was fastly possible because of the nuclear bomb) saved many more lives, e.g. in China, where many war crimes took place.

Surrending was in Japan socially and culturally despised. An opposition to war was not seen gladly, because it would call the military weak.

Japan didn´t managed it to find a minamous support of the Japanese cabinet, so surrending was not possible without the agreement of the military that is also in this cabinet.

There was only a slow progress, but Japan also worked on it´s own nuclear bomb. An U-boat of Germany was on the way to send materials to Japan. However, it is known that the poorly coordinated Japanese project was considerably behind the US developments in 1945, and also behind the unsuccessful German nuclear energy project of WWII.

Opponents of the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki argue they were unnecessary. Assistant Secretary Bard and other military leaders believed that Japan would have surrendered through conventional bombings and a naval blockade. The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey supported this, concluding Japan would have surrendered by the end of 1945 without the atomic bombs or Soviet entry.

Opponents argue that the bombing was a massive war crime. The bomb wasn´t only against soldiers, but also in conscience that thousands of civil people would die.

Opponents of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki argue that the decision was deeply immoral. They point out that the bombs targeted civilians, killing and injuring tens of thousands of innocent people. The immediate destruction and prolonged suffering caused by radiation injuries, burns, and psychological trauma inflicted inhumane suffering on survivors, known as Hibakusha.

Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Morally Right? - The Atlantic

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 75th anniversary of atomic bombings (bbc.com)

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Wikipedia

Thank you for reading, subscribing and comment!