The Morality of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima

"For sixty years, soldiers, politicians and historians have argued about the morality of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Did it bring an end to the war, removing the need for a land invasion which would have killed many more civilians and soldiers than the bomb itself? Or was it a cynical test of a new weapon on an enemy which was already on the verge of collapse? Whatever moral doubts exist about the bombing of Hiroshima, they are redoubled in the case of Nagasaki." (A short excerpt from Asia Exile titled The Luckiest or Unluckiest Man in the World? Read more here.)

While I grieved every time reading about the Japanese casualties in the A-bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki which end WWII, I must admit that I have very little sympathy for the their ordeal. An argument about the morality of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in my opinion is totally unnecessary because of the Japanese atrocities in WWII. Besides leaving many innocents civilians dead, the question of morality has never crossed the mind of their leaders when all these war crimes were being committed, either deliberately or accidentally, by their invading armies. Therefore, it was definitely necessary to put an end to the Japanese atrocities using A-Bomb or similar if anyone has one to prevent soldier without moral to create more casualties.

It is interesting to note that the Japanese High Command did not immediately surrender when the first A-Bomb was dropped in Hiroshima, thus resulting in the second bomb being dropped in Nagasaki by the Americans. The action of the Japanese High Command was beyond comprehension by a normal person. However, the article itself provides an answer. It was said that "American intelligence was fully aware of the confusion which reigned in the Japanese High Command: the question under debate was not whether, but how, to submit to the inevitable." Yes, how can Japan - the Imperial State submit themselves to an invading force? Their extreme jingoism, if not prevented, had delayed their decision in surrendering to the Allied. In delaying their decision, it seems to me that the Japanese was not deterred by the horror of A-Bomb, but had placed nationalism and egoism above the life of the common people. As Mr. Yamaguchi asked, "But they knew that it would kill women, children, babies. How could they do that?”, this question should be directed to his government of the day on why the delay of surrendering when they knew the devastation A-Bomb would caused? With their stubbornness to accept defeatism, I would say even the second A-Bomb for Nagasaki was justified.

Nevertheless, I do hope that similar episode will not happen again. Both A-Bomb and war atrocities give the same level of devastation. War should be avoided at all cost!