Was President Harry Truman justified when he authorised the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese civilians? Did the bombings end the war with fewer deaths than an American invasion of Japan would have resulted in? Or was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unimportant to Japanese military leaders when they decided to surrender?
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost civilian lives. However, ultimately it was for the greater good.
In Truman's situation bombing was justified.
The way WWII played out meant that the bombings were the most effective ways of ending the war, preventing further destruction.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused extraordinary damage, without even causing the end of WWII.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indistinct from the rest of US Air Campaign against Japan.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not ethically distinct from the United States' failed bombing campaign against Japan.
Nuclear weapons did not end the War in the Pacific, the Soviet Union's intervention did.
Soviet intervention in the conflict was much more important in ending the War in the Pacific.
This page was last edited on Friday, 6 Mar 2020 at 10:40 UTC