Was The Bomb that Dropped on Hiroshima Necessary To End the Second World War?

     Many people know the fact that the atomic bomb was dropped by America. The first bomb dropped on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 and killed around 140,000, including normal citizens. After three days, the second bomb destroyed Nagasaki city and killed around 50,000. This history was conveyed from generation to generation as justice. However, one article, published by Los Angels Times on August 5, 2020, suggested the opposite opinion to the traditional thinking. The controversial headline of this article is "The United States didn't have to start the nuclear age". Many people discuss whether the two attacks were necessary to end The Second World War earlier. I am going to state that the USA did not have to use nuclear weapons to end the war.

     Some people argue that using nuclear weapons was the only way to end the war without more victims. Ending World War II without an "invasion" that could have cost hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives have been accepted as common sense in the United States for the past 76 years. The atomic bomb not only ended the war to lead Japan to surrender, but also logically was " the most humane way" to inhibit more people from death in action. However, according to some historical records, the government of the US knew that Japan was about to announce surrender. In fact, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was an American military officer in the war, stated at the Potsdam Conference that Japan was preparing to surrender, so they didn't have to attack with that weapon of mass destruction. In addition, another record proves that Harry Truman, president during the war, and his aides knew the fact. From this perspective, we cannot regard the attacks as best to avoid casualties, and we have no choice but to think that the attacks were for other purposes, possibly experimental.

     There is another advocation for the attack. If Japan had announced surrender much earlier, America would not have dropped the bombs. It means that Japan should have accepted the surrender, and the attack encouraged Japan to choose the best way. This argument is based on a historical fact, but it is shallow. Even though Japan should have accepted the request from the UN, it does not follow that they can kill many innocent citizens. As I said, America already knew the war situation in Japan. The Allies demanded that Japan surrender unconditionally. On the other hand, the Japanese feared that the Emperor, "God" for many of them, would be tried and executed as war criminals. That is why Japan could not decide to accept the surrender so early. Despite the situation, the USA did not wait and decided to attack. If they had wanted to stop the war, they could have sought not a destructive but a peaceful solution.

     Although it is difficult to prove that the attacks were totally unnecessary and to persuade all of the people who think that it was the best method, it was absolutely immoral and there should have been other ways to end the war without destroying so many innocent people’s lives. Now that the USA is facing their country's painful past, everyone should seriously discuss the history of using nuclear weapons against Japan. It is time to re-think and review the past.