On August 6, 1945, the world entered the atomic age. Without warning, an American plane dropped the first nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. This horrific act killed about 90,000 people and injured another 40,000, many of whom died from radiation sickness. Three days later, on August 9, 1945, another American plane dropped a second nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. This bomb killed another 37,000 people and injured 43,000. “Together the two bombs eventually killed an estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians.”¹ Many structures around the cities were also drastically destroyed in the bombings. About 67 percent of Hiroshima’s buildings, transportation systems, and urban structures were destroyed along with 40 percent of the city of Nagasaki destroyed or unrepairable.² After looking back on these outrageous numbers, many people are stunned and wonder if the bombings were moral. “Though we can dismantle and bury pieces of atomic weaponry, we cannot bury the knowledge of such weapons,”³ or the knowledge of the many innocent human lives that it took. There are many factors that make the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki immoral, most importantly the fact that there was no true warning and the amount of innocent human lives that were taken.

One main concern about the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that we can look back upon is the fact that there was no true, clear warning from the United States about the dropping of these bombs. Yes, the U.S., along with Britain, did issue the Potsdam declaration to Japan, which included this ultimatum: “We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”⁴ People may argue that this ultimatum gives a clear enough warning of “utter destruction,” but does it really? What is the definition of “utter destruction?” No one really knows, and Japan didn’t either. If the U.S. wanted to be reasonable and moral, they could have warned them more clearly by telling them what they were planning on doing or showing them the power of the atomic bomb. They even could have targeted an area in Japan with a sparse population. It is hard to believe that a target like this could not have been found. It might not have been the right military decision, or the right way to win the war, but it would have been moral. The Japanese, not knowing what was coming if they made the wrong decision, declined this ultimatum and awaited “utter destruction.” It was not what they had planned on at all. We could have easily made this situation moral by revealing a few more facts, but the simple truth is, “we did not try; we gave no specific reason.”⁵

Many people argue that dropping the bombs on the two Japanese cities was necessary to save many lives, both American and Japanese. They say that the alternative was invasion, which estimated even more deaths than those which occurred in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.⁶ There is clear evidence that this invasion might not have even happened though. “Henry H. (“Hap”) Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: ‘It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.’”⁷ Other American officials also knew from intercepting messages and breaking Japan’s secret code that the country’s leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. If what we wanted was to win the war and we knew they were trying to end the war, why did we have to drop the atomic bombs? The simple answer, again, is we didn’t. Just because people predicted we would have more deaths if we invaded and did not proceed to drop the bombs, does not mean we would have. There is no true way to tell for sure, and by dropping the bombs, we took away innocent civilians lives instead of militarily trained soldiers. “Even those who supported use of the bomb against Japan for the sake of ending the war quickly were appalled at the massive destruction of life caused by their new weapon.”⁸ This massive destruction of life could easily be considered as murder, on the terms that Saint Augustine held that taking the life of a noncombatant was murder.⁹ The mere fact of dropping a bomb was not what made the action immoral, it was the action of killing innocent lives in the process. “What was new about these bombs was the technology, not the morality. More people were killed with ordinary bombs in German cities or Tokyo. Morality is about what you do to people, not the technology you use.”¹⁰ In the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we killed, or murdered, people. It clearly did not matter that we used a nuclear bomb. This was the first atomic bomb ever used, but not the first killing. Killing has always been immoral, and the bombing of the two cities was one big killing-spree of innocent civilians for the sake of winning a war in a quick and efficient fashion.

Winning a war is no reason to take innocent lives. Dropping two atomic bombs is not necessarily immoral, but using them to take lives is. Looking back on the tragic event, it is evident that it is in fact, not a moral decision or action at all.

Endnotes

1. Mark Weber. “Was Hiroshima Necessary?”. The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No.3), pages 4-11. Accessed: March 22, 2008. <http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html>

2. Gregory P. Pavlik. “The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years”. The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, September 1995 (Vol. 45, No. 9). Accessed: March 26, 2008. <http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4483>

3. “Hiroshima 1995 – moral aspects of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945 – Editorial”. Commonwealth. August 18, 1995. FindArticles.com. Accessed: March 19, 2008. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n14_v122?pnum=2&opg=17210223>

4. Weber, 7.

5. Edwin Fogelman. Hiroshima: The Decision To Use The A-Bomb. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964, 96.

6. Thomas Sowell. “The Morality of Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Capitalism Magazine. August 9, 2005. Accessed: March 30, 2008. <http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4362>

7. Weber, 5.

8. Fogelman, 107.

9. Pavlik.

10. Sowell.

Bibliography

Fogelman, Edwin. Hiroshima: The Decision To Use The A-Bomb. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1964, 96.

Pavlik, P. Gregory. “The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years”. The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, September 1995 (Vol. 45, No. 9). Accessed: March 26, 2008. <http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4483>

Sowell, Thomas. “The Morality of Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Capitalism Magazine. August 9, 2005. Accessed: March 30, 2008. <http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4362>

Weber, Mark. “Was Hiroshima Necessary?”. The Journal of Historical Review, May- June 1997 (Vol. 16, No.3), pages 4-11. Accessed: March 22, 2008. <http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html>

“Hiroshima 1995 – moral aspects of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945 – Editorial”. Commonwealth. August 18, 1995. FindArticles.com. Accessed: March 19, 2008. <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n14_v122?pnum=2&opg=17210 223>