August 6th and August 9th are two dates that will always be remembered as a horrific day for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1945, American B-29 bombers dropped two atomic bombs that obliterated these two cities. To this day, the debate is whether or not the dropping of the two atomic bombs were justified. Recently, polls show a shift in opinions of the atomic bombs. [1]

There are good arguments for both views. Regardless of the differing opinions, most people would agree that it was a difficult decision to make for President Harry Truman after FDR’s death. Here are some important notes to consider before one forms an opinion whether or not the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.

1. The other option was a land invasion of the Japanese mainland. There were predictions (and probably the right prediction) that casualties would be extremely high for both sides. A land invasion could have resulted in the bloodiest battle in the entire war, possibly higher than the Battle of Stalingrad, Kursk, Berlin, etc. Some predicted American casualties in the millions (highest ever in U.S. history) and Japanese casualties much higher. Many Japanese soldiers (and civilians) would have fought to the death. The Japanese citizens were also told propaganda of the evil that would come upon their land if the Americans were to takeover the mainland. This is, in my opinion, a very strong point in this debate.
2. The Japanese were on the verge of surrender. This would be a valid argument for those that believe the U.S. did not have to drop the bombs. The Japanese Navy and Air Force were beat to the point of non-existence. The Soviet Union were also preparing to declare war (which they did) on the empire. The fact is clear: The Japanese would have surrendered either way… eventually/someday.
3. The Japanese didn’t surrender. Kind of a contradiction of the second point huh? Well it is true. Remember, the Japanese did not surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped. They also did not surrender immediately after the second bomb was dropped. The U.S. gave them about 5-6 days to think about surrendering before dropping a third bomb.  When the thought of surrender finally came up, there was an attempted coup from the military to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.(See Kyujo incident) This would be a strong argument against those that say the atomic bombs should have been dropped into the ocean as a warning to the Japanese. It took some time before the Japanese actually surrendered when the bombs were dropped on an actual city, most likely a warning bomb wouldn’t have caused the Japanese to surrender.
4. Massive human loss is never justified. No explanation needed for this one. War is tragic and human loss no matter whom should always be avoided. This is a strong point as well.
5. After the bombs were dropped, there was a massive push for peace. There was an even stronger push for nations to create agreements to avoid using such weaponry. Some would argue that it was necessary to drop these bombs to show the detrimental consequences/effects they have.

It was a difficult decision for Harry Truman to make in 1945. Peace should always be sought for but tragedies such as war do happen. What is your opinion? Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?