Why the Atomic Bomb was Used

Last week, President Obama became the first sitting American President to visit Hiroshima since the United States military detonated an atomic bomb over the city on August 6th, 1945. There was some speculation that Obama would make a formal apology on behalf of the American people, but no such declaration was given.

Many within the Japanese parliament were upset about this outcome, and many others in America were angry that Obama would even consider making an apology. The visit was, to be sure, an odd and questionable political decision, especially when considering the diplomatic and emotional landscape surrounding the issue: a visit without an apology would anger many politicians within Japan; but making any public concession would have drastic consequences in both America and allied nations who suffered greatly at the hands of the Japanese in the Second World War. Why Obama would even make such a potentially explosive visit is difficult to understand.

But, there is a larger question here that is often debated in American spheres, and likely abroad: were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justifiable? Naturally, this question is ludicrously difficult to answer as it involves a myriad of "what if" questions and speculations that cannot be confirmed. We will never get all of the facts, nor can we truly understand the various contexts in which the decision to bomb Japan was made. It is important, therefore, to remain as close to the "facts" as we can, and put aside as many personal biases as possible. These biases blind us from seeing facts as they are and coming to conclusions based on those facts- all we end up seeing is how the facts can be used to support our preexisting conclusions. Even without all these personal biases, this is still an enormously complex issue. The bombings caused almost 270,000 deaths in both immediate explosions and subsequent radioactive poisoning- it is not easy to come to a rational conclusion. But that does not mean we shouldn't try!

So can we, as objective analysts, justify the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945?
Let's look at some of the major reasons America dropped the bomb:

Bushido and Invasion

In combat with American soldiers in the Second World War, Japanese soldiers possessed a ferocity and zealous dedication that went far beyond considerations of pain, suffering, and death. Japanese forces committed actions in the war that the normal human would have scarcely imagined possible. Kamikaze attacks were among the less extreme iterations of such actions- in the same vein, Japanese soldiers would strap bombs to their chests and crawl underneath American tanks before detonating. In infantry engagements, the Japanese committed their forces to massive, head-on, and suicidal charges directly into overwhelming American machine gun fire. Hundreds or thousands of men would perish in these attacks, and Japanese casualties rates were frequently as high as 90%. Those Japanese that survived these initial charges often pretended to be dead, waited for American soldiers to get close, and then sprung into suicide attacks in order to kill one or two Americans before being killed themselves. Japanese soldiers also frequently continued to fight through numerous, brutal injuries that would have brought normal men to the ground. This was most notable with Japanese swordsman (not uncommon in combat), who the Americans found could sustain several gunshot wounds, but continue to attack and kill Americans. As one American soldier put it, Japanese soldiers "took a lot of killing." Of course, this brutality also translated to terrible violence wrought upon American soldiers, who were frequently killed in extremely gruesome ways. To the Americans, such action was utterly barbaric.

Mostly, this incredible Japanese ferocity was due to a deeply ingrained dedication to a bastardized cultural ideal known as Bushido. Bushido, which loosely translates to the "way of the warrior", originally resembled Western chivalry- some of its main tenets were honor to one's nation and superiors, dedication to duty, commitment to victory, precision in all walks of life, and spiritual and psychological wholeness. Although subject to human imperfection, it really was an admirable and beautiful ideology to aspire to. Unfortunately, Bushido was manipulated by generation after generation of Japanese authorities before the 20th century- and just before the Second World War, Japanese Imperial authorities twisted it into a demand for almost inhuman, extremist dedication to the Japanese Empire and Imperial duty. Its draw was so powerful that practically all of Japanese culture was highly militarized. This quickly became clear to American forces in the pacific, where even women, children, and the elderly would frequently make suicide attacks on occupying American soldiers rather than live under American control. The bastardization and subsequent destruction of the Bushido ideology remains, in my mind, one of the greatest cultural tragedies of the war.

But Bushido also meant that the Japanese refused to surrender, under almost any circumstances. Over the course of the war, thousands of Japanese soldiers chose death rather than yield- many detonated live grenades against their chests before being captured. It was such a problem that there was an incredibly low rate of American-held Japanese prisoners of war. The most famous example of Japanese refusal to surrender was on the island of Saipan, where around 10,000 Japanese civilians threw themselves to their deaths from 1,000 foot cliffs rather than surrender to American occupation. In 1945, the Japanese government refused to surrender time and time again- even as they were confined to only a few of the Japanese islands, clearly close to defeat. One French reporter living in Tokyo at the time wrote that the Japanese would "eat stones before surrendering." The Japanese meant to fight to the last.

This is the foe that the Americans faced in the Pacific- a highly militarized, unimaginably dedicated and steadfast nation comprised of men, women, and even children who would rather sacrifice their lives than dishonor themselves and their homeland with surrender. It was this homeland that the Americans reluctantly prepared to invade in late 1945, when attempts at generating a Japanese surrender failed. The estimates for this invasion, rather colorfully named Operation Downfall, put combined casualties well into the millions. (It is worth noting here that, although there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that the Japanese people were dedicated to the ideals enumerated above, there was undoubtedly a small portion of the population who would have certainly surrendered rather than died.)

Instead of committing to such an invasion, the Americans decided to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They hoped that the raw power of these weapons would force even Japan to surrender and make any invasion unnecessary, saving countless American and Japanese lives. There is certainly little wiggle room for interpretation of how such an invasion would have played out: without a doubt, it would have amounted to one of the bloodiest and most gruesome events in the whole of the human experience, resulting in millions of deaths and suffering on an untold level. The bomb, though horrible, did save both the Allies and the Japanese outside of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from one of the most terrible conflicts to ever take place. This is the standard justification for the American use of atomic bombs- and it is certainly a convincing one. How many other lives were saved, because 270,000 were lost?

Alternatives
Many now suggest that the United States could have demonstrated the power of Nuclear weapons on an uninhabited target in order to scare the Japanese into submission. In fact, about 70 scientists working on the atomic bomb petitioned for this very thing in a letter to Harry Truman in July, 1945. Unfortunately, this idea does not take into account the ideological zealotry of 1945 Japan. The American government was all too familiar with this ideology and its consequences, and believed that a demonstration of the bomb would fail to intimidate Japan into surrender. Additionally, the Americans were on track to assemble only three atomic bombs for use in August, 1945, and the United States did not want to risk one of these bombs on a demonstration that would fail to intimidate the Japanese. Nothing would have been worse than bombing Japan, yet attaining no surrender. As it turned out, two bombs barely did the job: the United States was preparing to assemble the third atomic bomb when the Japanese finally surrendered. So, while we cannot possibly know if a demonstration would have been ineffective, it was certainly logical to assume- and the American's limited nuclear stockpile made testing that assumption a dangerous gamble.

But what about alternative targets? Why did the Americans need to kill so many to make their point? Many people today criticize America for targeting Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which they see as civilian targets. But, for the most part, American authorities chose these two cities because they were actually both significant military targets: Hiroshima housed tens of thousands of troops and large stores of military goods; Nagasaki was home to several major shipyards and produced major quantities of other military goods. And, while both cities had large civilian populations, these populations were mostly employed in the war industry, producing vital materials for the Japanese war effort. But, at the end of the day, the high loss of life and immeasurable destruction is exactly what the Americans wanted: shock and awe on an unimaginable scale. They hoped that it would bring the Japanese to a surrender that could otherwise only be acquired through much higher loss of life on both sides. (The above should no be misunderstood as a claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were without "innocent" civilians, unrelated to the military effort of Japan. There were thousands of children in each city, let alone men and women who served the Empire in ways other than producing military goods. We will discuss the consideration of such casualties in the next section.)

Years later, some American authorities began to believe that there could have been an outcome that did not involve nuclear bombs at all. In 1945, American terms for Japanese surrender demanded the removal of the Japanese Emperor. Japan refused outright. When the Emperor did ultimately surrender, his only condition was that he remain in place as Emperor of Japan, regardless of the political system put in place by the Americans. The Americans then agreed. But, some now wonder: if the Americans had not demanded the Emperor step down, would the Japanese have surrendered sooner? While this question is impossible to answer, it does boil down to one thing: the continued political power of one man was more important to Japanese authorities (most notably the Emperor) than the lives of the Japanese and Americans that died (or would have died) in the continuation of armed conflict.

The Emotional Landscape
But explaining the bombing as an attack on two military targets in an effort to save American and Japanese lives is not altogether complete, and rather conveniently leaves out a critical emotional component. It is easy to see how Japanese behavior in World War Two could have generated hatred and fear among the American people. There is no doubt that Japanese action (starting with the attack on Pearl Harbor) rapidly brought an incredibly powerful wave of anti-Japanese sentiment, which was only solidified over the course of the conflict in the Pacific where 100,000 American combatants were killed. And, in the face of such violence and other seemingly inhuman Japanese action, Americans quickly began to consider the Japanese as something less than human. Of course, dehumanization of an enemy is also a fundamental part of warfare, and is even carefully ingrained into military culture: such a point of view makes killing easier and minimizes personal risk. Simply put, compassion is dangerous and can result in death or defeat.

As such, hatred and dehumanization were most palpable within the American military. It is, however, unclear just how much these emotions influenced the politicians who made the decision to drop the bomb. American authorities certainly felt little compassion towards the Japanese people, who had begun the conflict and committed actions against American soldiers (and other nations) that were difficult to forgive. To the President and his advisers, American lives were the main focus in any major decisions. They saw the atomic bomb as a means to ensure that such surrender was accomplished in a way that saved the most American lives- the Japanese lives that would be spared from an American invasion were only a secondary consideration. This may seem harsh, but it is a natural and pragmatic approach to warfare: protect yourself and destroy your enemy. As General George S. Patton somewhat candidly noted, "The objective of war is not to die for your country- it's to make the other bastard die for his."

But, to their credit, most of Truman's advisers did make a concerted effort to consider all of the Japanese casualties before recommending such action to the President. In particular, it is important to recognize the tremendous efforts of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and Manhattan Project manager Leslie R. Groves. These men did their utmost to ensure that America arrived at the decision to drop the bomb through careful consideration of the ethical and human costs, regardless of any anti-Japanese sentiments that they or others harbored. There were numerous times in the decision making process in which Stimson vocally and forcibly demanded that the bombing of Japan only take place if necessary, and that such bombings strike military targets and cause minimal possible damage to "innocent" civilian life. On one occasion, Stimson demanded that one of the primary targets be changed from Kyoto, in order to save the historical and cultural value of the Japanese city. Other targets, housing more non-military civilians and fewer soldiers or military industry, he refused to consider altogether. So, while Truman and his advisers were undoubtedly influenced by the anger and hatred towards the Japanese, any meaningful effect seems to have been subconscious. They did understand that their decision would cause untold suffering and devastation to human beings who may or may not have been involved in Japanese war industry. American authorities knew that these human beings included innocent children who would perish in any attack, and sought to minimize those deaths. Ultimately, however, the draw to end the war and thereby save many American (and Japanese) lives was stronger than the pull to spare fewer Japanese.

Domestic and International Complications

One important, yet often overlooked, reason for the bombings was politics on domestic and international stages. On April 12, 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt suffered a stroke and died, and the decision to bomb Japan fell squarely onto the somewhat scrawny shoulders of Harry Truman. The inexperienced Truman turned out to be neither a talented statesman nor knowledgeable leader. Where Roosevelt had been pragmatic, thoughtful, and deliberate, Truman was intuitive, confused, and capricious. He was ill-equipped to be one of the most powerful men in the free world, and even less equipped to make one of the most historically significant decisions in human history. Ultimately, Truman decided to bomb Japan mainly because it was the recommendation of his advisers. It is unclear whether or not Roosevelt would have done the same. (I criticize Truman here, but his character and aspirations changed wildly after the war. The weight of the Japanese bombing ultimately pushed him to make nuclear policy decisions that saved the human species from a nuclear war.)

To be fair, Truman did wrestle with the decision to bomb Japan. Unfortunately, that consideration was governed by more than human morality and military strategy. At the time, the war was quickly coming to a close, and each of the Allies were positioning themselves to gain the most after the war. While some of the spoils of victory had already been divided with agreements between the three major Allies, the fate of Japan was unclear. To make matters more complicated, the Allies had previously insisted that Russia be involved in the war against Japan- they were so demanding that they had added a clause to the Yalta agreement: if Russia did not enter the war with Japan before it was over, it would lose any claims to certain lands that it stood to gain. Stalin hoped to live up to this part of the Yalta agreement, and even additionally gain a portion of Japan for himself through further maneuvering. Unsurprisingly, the Americans felt this would be both unfair and detrimental to global democracy.

So, Truman reasoned that dropping the bomb on Japan would accomplish the desired military outcome of a quick Japanese surrender before Stalin could seize any of Japan- and possibly before the Russians could engage the Japanese and thus fulfill the terms of the Yalta agreement. Truman also wanted the bombing to be a demonstration of American might- a message directly to Stalin, and a lesson for any post-war dealings between the two states: America would drop atomic bombs if given a good reason.

I personally do not find Truman's international considerations to be compelling justifications for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- while an argument could be made that some Japanese would have suffered immeasurably under Soviet occupation, this is a consideration that is unlikely to have crossed Truman's mind. Truman's decision was essentially a political move to gain America a superior post-war standing. Especially given that it ultimately led to the Cold War, this was certainly not worth the approximately 270,000 lives lost as a result of the bombings.

Final Word
I do hope that this post helps to detail some of the considerations that came into play in the American decision to bomb Japan. Ultimately, the decision to drop the bombs on Japan was made because the United States saw no acceptable alternative for attaining Japanese surrender and accomplishing their post-war goals. At the end of the day, the choice was not an easy one for American authorities to make, but it was made all the same.

Whether or not this decision was "justified" is not for me to say. But, even if an apology for this action is warranted, it is wildly unlikely that the United States will ever issue one. To do so would be to indicate disrespect to millions of soldiers and civilians who suffered in the Second World War, and open the apologizing President up to a wave of deeply emotional criticism and conflict. It is best for any President to leave the past as the past.