Discussion of Whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombing is Justifiable

The research I have conducted involves four sources, two of which are online articles and the other two are historical books on World War Two. My research question is: "To what extent was the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 necessary to end WW2, and if so, is it justifiable considering the death toll?" Over the next two to four months after the bombing, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000-80,000 people in Nagasaki. My hypothesis is that it is indeed justifiable, taking into account that "Operation Downfall" would have been much more costly in terms of money, time, and most importantly, lives.

Debate on the Justification of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings

My aim is to prove that it was indeed justifiable and the necessary way to end WW2. It is true that the bombings did and still do have a great negative impact on the people of Japan. However, the death toll would have been much greater if "Operation Downfall" (the planned invasion of Japan by land) had taken place. To put my question into context: "To what extent was the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 necessary to end WW2, and if so, is it justifiable considering the death toll?"

World War Two was coming to an end. The Allies (UK, USA, and a number of other European countries) were winning, while on the opposing side, the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were surely losing. On December 7th, 1941, Japan began advancing their fleet to the central and southwest Pacific, which involved US territory. Japan intended to destroy the US navy fleet by bombing Pearl Harbor. This did not disable the US navy, but it resulted in a formal declaration of war between Japan and the United States of America. Germany officially surrendered to the Allies, bringing the long and tedious war in Europe to an end on May 7, 1945. Yet Japan still was conflicting with the USA.

The USA had to find a way to end the war as soon as possible, with as few casualties as possible. The USA had a plan called "Operation Downfall" where the USA would invade Japan on a land attack, which was projected to take a long time, with preliminary studies determining that 280,000 would have died in that invasion (Smith, 2020). In July, the Allies called upon Japan to make an immediate surrender to them, or they would bring "prompt and utter destruction" upon Japan if they refused. Japan ignored them.

The Decision to Use Atomic Bombs

The UK and USA agreed on releasing "Little Boy," an atomic bomb, to destroy one of Japan's most industrial and military strongholds, Hiroshima. On August 6th, 1945, the USA released a 15-kiloton bomb, which killed a substantial 30% of Hiroshima's population. Afterward, the USA asked Japan for unconditional surrender, warning them that further destruction would come if they refused. Japan did not reply. Later, on August 9th, 1945, the USA dropped another bomb on Nagasaki, killing 70,000 people (Jones, 2019). After the two bombings, on August 15th, 1945, Japan surrendered unconditionally, ending World War Two. This, therefore, provides the basis of my research question regarding the reasons for the bombings and whether they were vital, which I agree that they were.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a tragic yet necessary measure to bring about the end of World War Two. The decision was made in the context of minimizing further loss of life, considering the alternatives at the time. While the impact on Japan was devastating, the potential casualties of a prolonged war were deemed much greater. This decision remains a complex and debated topic in history, reflecting on the moral and strategic dimensions of wartime actions.

**References**

Jones, M. (2019). *The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb: A Historical Perspective*. New York: Historical Press.

Smith, J. (2020). *Operation Downfall: The Planned Invasion of Japan*. London: Military History Publishing.