Mogilevsky 1

Miriam Mogilevsky

Mr. Ahrns

AP US History

21 December 2007

Pure Nihilism

“Pearl Harbor has now been partially avenged,” said Admiral Chester

Nimitz after the Battle of Midway, in which the Unites States inflicted a

crushing defeat on Japanese forces. For the U.S., World War II started and

ended with two terrifying attacks – the first being Pearl Harbor; the second,

the atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and

Nagasaki. To some Americans, and much of the American government at the

time, the first attack was unprovoked and monstrous, while the second was

reasonable and rational as a strategy for war. However, historians, scientists,

and laypeople have all challenged the Unites States’ actions against

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They assert that the atomic bomb attack should not

have been carried out for moral issues, that Japan was about to surrender

anyway, and that the second bomb should not have been dropped.

The ethics of dropping a bomb that will surely kill thousands of

innocent civilians are difficult and complex. Over 180,000 people died from

both atomic bomb attacks. Many were women, children, and the elderly – as

well as men who had never personally taken any action against the United

States. The Japanese citizens had no warning, and no real way to avoid the

attack. Furthermore, even if they survived the explosion, many died years

Mogilevsky 2

later from radioactive fallout. The Japanese considered this an attack not

only on their nation and people, but on God and humanity itself. As a

Japanese newspaper put it, “This is not war; this is not even murder; this is

pure nihilism.” They also felt that the Americans were being hypocritical

because they had opposed Japan’s military actions against China, even

though they certainly had not involved the instant annihilation of hundreds

of thousands of citizens. Many Americans, too, opposed the attacks on moral

grounds. The Christian Century, an American Protestant journal, claimed that

“the use made of the atomic bomb has placed [the United States] in an

indefensible moral position.” Such opponents of the bombing thought that, if

demonstrating to Japan the power of the United States was really necessary,

they could have simply dropped the bombs in Japan’s countryside, where few

people would die, but the terrifying effects of the weapon could be witnessed

nonetheless. Indeed, even simply explaining the bomb to the Japanese may

have sufficed; after all, despite America’s warning that the Japanese faced

“complete devastation” if they did not surrender, they did not know that the

United States had nuclear weapons. In addition, historians have added more

moral implications for the bombings by suggesting that Truman carried them

out in order to coerce Stalin of the Soviet Union to cooperate with him.

Clearly, killing hundreds of thousands of people in an act of war is one thing;

killing them in order to attempt – unsuccessfully, at that – at passive-

aggressive diplomacy with another nation is something different. Similarly,

Truman may have decided to drop the nuclear bombs because he wanted to

Mogilevsky 3

prevent the Soviet Union from truly entering the war in the Pacific, because

the entrance of the Soviets would also enable communism to gain a foothold

in East Asia – an occurrence that Truman feared greatly due to his mistrust

of communism. For these reasons, from a moral standpoint, the United

States should not have dropped atomic bombs on Japan.

Aside from issues o f ethics and humanity, critics have also pinpointed

why the bombings were logistically unnecessary and excessive. After all, the

battles of Leyte Gulf and Okinawa had left the Japanese military forces

devastated and almost nonexistent. The Americans, of course, were

completely aware of this – American battleships and bombers attacked

Japanese industrial centers without any retaliation from the Japanese.

Clearly, Japan could not inflict serious damage to the U.S. military, so a

nuclear bombing could not be considered an attack of preemption. Also, at

the time, factions within the Japanese government were struggling for

control. Moderate leaders demanded peace at almost any cost (the one

stipulation being that the emperor must remain in place). However, Japan’s

military leaders refused to give up the fight. Furthermore, the United States

refused to allow the emperor to remain (even though this decision was later

reversed and the emperor remained on the throne), and many Japanese

refused to surrender without this one compromise. The most reasonable

course of action for the United States would have been to wait for the

Japanese factions to finish debating, because they would almost certainly

eventually agree to surrender, making the bombings obviously unnecessary.

Mogilevsky 4

The United States, too, had suffered from wartime disagreements between

factions and parties before (such as the notable debates over neutrality

preceding both world wars), and therefore must have recognized the

situation for what it was. The possibility of attack was clearly not a factor –

the United States had just decimated the Japanese military. Continuing the

“war” for a few more weeks surely would not have cost a large amount of

money or American lives. Therefore, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

should not have been carried out because they were unnecessary.

A final argument against the United States’ attack on Japan is that it

should have dropped one bomb, not two. After all, if the purpose of the

attack was to frighten Japan with America’s power and convince it to

surrender, would just one bomb not showcase the superior military

achievements of the U.S. just the same? Furthermore, after the dropping of

the first bomb, the people of Japan were stunned, just like Americans were

after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had not anticipated this attack and had

never dealt with such a disaster before. However, just a few days later, the

Soviet Union declared war on them, given them a second front to consider.

The United States expected an immediate surrender, but the government of

Japan was still trying to come to a final decision. However, the United States

gave them almost no time at all – only three days – and dropped a second

bomb on Nagasaki. Numerous historians have argued that, even if Japan

would not have surrendered before the attacks, it would certainly have

capitulated after the first one. Therefore, dropping just one atomic bomb

Mogilevsky 5

would have achieved the same results but saved the lives of 80,000

Japanese citizens.

Among numerous criticisms of the United States’ controversial decision

to bomb Japan with nuclear weapons, the prominent ones question the

morality, necessity, and extent of the attack. Americans and Japanese alike

deplored this inhumane and brutal treatment of innocent Japanese citizens

and cities. Historians have questioned the decision on a tactical basis, due to

evidence that the Japanese government was working towards a decision to

surrender, and did not have the military strength to cause any true damage

to U.S. forces. Even many of those who supported attacking Japan with

nuclear weapons criticized the decision to drop a second bomb. In all, this

controversial decision by the United States ended World War II, altered the

course of the rest of the 20th century, and introduced significant

complications to the techniques and ethics of war. The bombings of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only two nuclear attacks in history – and for

good reason. To guard the people of the world against the dangers of

increasingly effective military technology, we must understand why the

nuclear attacks on Japan were so immoral and terrifying – and why they must

never be repeated.

Mogilevsky 6

Works Cited

Brinkley, Alan. American History: a Survey. McGraw-Hill, 2007.

David, Kennedy M., and Thomas A. Bailey. The American Spirit: Since 1865.

9th ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998.