United States Politics and History (Essay Sample)

The Ethical Merits of Truman’s Japanese Atomic Bombing Decision: Was it Justified?
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Abstract
Over the years since the end of World War II, there have been raging debates about the United States’ controversial decision to unleash nuclear atomic bombs on Japan. The decision that has sparked worldwide discourse among historians and scientists alike was made by the then US president, Harry S. Truman. One bomb hit Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 while a second bomb was dropped in the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. The aftermath of the two bombings was catastrophic, with hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians buried and killed by the bomb debris.
There have been several arguments for and against that decision that had tremendous adverse effects on Japanese civilians. Legal, historical and political scholars are still divided as to whether the atomic invasion or bombing was a suitable and justifiable means of achieving victory by the United States. Some historians have lent credence and justified the decision as acceptable under the then prevailing circumstances in America while others have vehemently opposed and questioned the moral and ethical efficacy of that decision; whether it was necessary in the first instance. On similar note, questions have arisen over whether there must have been any hidden agenda or ill intentions by Truman in arriving at such a decision .The fact that Harry Truman defended his decision points to the fact that it was a means to an end (Bernstein, 1998). Besides the negative impacts that the atomic bombing decision by Truman had on Japan and its populace, the decision equally had political implications particularly for the United States of America. This paper evaluates and discusses President Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan during the World War II that killed and maimed thousands of Japanese innocent citizens.
The Ethical Merits of Truman’s Japanese Atomic Bombing Decision: Was it Justified?
Support for the decision
One of the arguments usually put forward by supporters of President Truman’s decision to bomb Japanese cities is that he had no other option or choice. They point that the plan to use atomic bombs in the war had been hatched up long before Truman even ascended to Presidency. The bombing had been architect of his predecessor, President Roosevelt. Moreover, there had already been scientific tests being carried out by the US military on bombs before Truman’s tenure. His was therefore to complete the plan that had already taken shape, failure to which would undermine his image and legitimacy among the American citizens who were concerned about the position of US in the brutal nature of World War II. The American citizenry was anxiously waiting to see which step Mr. Harry Truman would take given the brutality that had been meted out on American soldiers in earlier attacks on American soil by the Japanese and Germans. In fact, this seemed to be one of the toughest decisions that an American President had had to make considering any implications it would then have on the international plane. In .The invasion was therefore inevitable.
Additionally, other historians like Wainstrek (2013) argue in support for the bombings on the grounds that they helped to a great extent in ending the World War II. According to them, the most brutal war in the world history would not have come to a happy end had Truman not taken such drastic measures and made the decision deemed by many as barbaric, inhuman and foolhardy. They contend that, failure by the Japanese Emperor to surrender after having been urged by the United States to do so under the Postdam Declaration that Japan had consented to respect vindicated the bombing. Its failure to honor the declaration for cessation of hostilities, it is argued, compelled Truman to make the hard decision to bomb Japan. The Declaration had been reached at conference in Berlin held on July 17, 1945. The bombing was a good way of sending a stern warning message to the world and other allies or belligerent nations of the necessity of abolishing the war that had had devastating effects on states and civilians.
Further afield, according to Miscamble (2011), the decision to bomb Japan was mostly necessitated by the need to avoid more serious and devastative casualties that would have resulted had the United States decided to use military force instead of atomic bombs. He further argues that the president’s decision might have been largely influenced by reports by his then Secretary of War, Henry Stimson’s advice that bombing of Japan would save several American lives that would have been lost had the US waited for Japan to assemble its weapons and attack the United States. He needed to save Americans’ lives. The author however assumes that the use of military force instead of bombs would and did not have similar or more catastrophic effects.
Opposition to the Bombing
Political and historical scholars have in equal measure condemned and admonished the decision made by Harry Truman to bomb Japan. The opposition to Truman’s controversial decision by most critics is mainly based on ethical and moral grounds. They contend that the decision should never have been reached as there could have better alternatives to bombing.
One of the fiercest attackers of the decision by President Truman, White (2009), argues that the atomic invasion of Japan by US through bombing reflected the intrinsically immoral and barbaric nature and attitude of the United States towards other nations’ citizens. According to him, the decision cannot be justified merely by pointing out possibility of severe casualties had the bombing carried out as supporters of Truman’s decision portend. The President, to him, failed to consider the social impacts or repercussions that his decision would have, and did have, on the innocent civilians in Japan. There were truly other pursuable alternatives to a peaceful end of the World War II instead of the surprise attacks on an enemy nation. The author points out that the United States should have explored other alternatives such as diplomacy or military and economic conventional means to end the war rather than resort to nuclear weapons to bomb Japan.
Another opposition advanced by White is that the bombing was tantamount to crimes against humanity, war crimes or a form of international terrorism acts that went against international laws and interests of states. He is particularly concerned with the fact that the bombing targeted mostly undefended and innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the Japanese enmity and hostilities with America (2009). It was such a dehumanizing and torturous act that would not be tolerated under the current international order of civilized nations that respect and uphold basic and fundamental human rights. The author seems not to appreciate the political considerations that might have influenced the President’s decision.
Political Implications of Truman...