Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
by Tanya Ashreena
I agree to Stephen E. Ambrose's "Americas at War." I think that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. Although, I am against using nuclear weapons to win a war, and detest the fact that so many innocent lives got killed, and those that didn't got cancer, not mentioning the bombing led to a great deal of radiation into the air, I still agree with Ambrose.
Ambrose says that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a decision to give the Japanese a quick way to surrender without shame. I agree that the nuclear bombing was really the quickest possible way to the Japanese surrender without shame, or at least not much shame. Had the war continued long and the Japanese totally annihilated by the American military, it would have been a lot more shameful. In addition, the bombing also satisfied the American people's rage for revenge.
If the Americans had not bombed, then the Japanese would continue fighting. They would not surrender. Throughout Hirohito's rule, he had no control over the Army. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been bombed, the Japanese Army would have seen no reason to surrender because they still had over 3 million of troops and civilians on the Japanese home island ready to fight. They still had over 12,000 combat aircraft ready. We know that although the Japanese wanted to negotiate a peace, they would not surrender, as even with two atomic bombs dropped on their country, half the Japanese cabinet and a lot of the military still found no reason to surrender. It was due to Hirohito's plea after the bombings that the Japanese finally did surrender. As America did not want prisoners, continuing to fight would be worse since...