The

United States made the wrong decision by launching the atomic

bomb on Japan

Malcolm Maloney

Traditional arguments that justify atomic bomb use go as follows: a mainland

invasion of Japan would cause a million American causalities and a mainland

invasion of Japan was the only way the Japanese people would agree to an

unconditional surrender. Thus the atomic bomb saved American and Japanese lives

by forcing unconditional surrender. I question two assumptions behind this

argument: first off, that unconditional surrender was a necessary condition to

impose on Japan, and secondly if unconditional surrender was a necessary condition

that a mainland invasion was the only way to achieve it.

U.S. leadership and foreign policy experts believed if the Japanese Emperor

was guaranteed immunity from execution or war crimes the Japanese government

could have agreed to surrender [2]. The Emperor was more a ceremonial/religious

figure and it was the U.S.s correct understanding the Japanese government was

controlled by the Cabinet that was mostly controlled by the military. The United

States didnt intend to prosecute the Emperor because they felt that doing so would

make it impossible to govern Japan after the war (and when Japan did surrender,

the Emperor was not tried for war crimes). One reason the United States insisted on

unconditional surrender was to impose a new constitution and occupy Japan. These

two goals were very important for the demilitarization of Japan and its emergence

of democracy today. However the U.S. never attempted to negotiate a surrender that

included those terms but also guaranteed the safety of the Emperor. Language to
guarantee the safety of the Emperor was included original draft of the Postman

Declaration but Trumans advisor former U.S. Senator James Byrnes convinced

Truman to remove it. Senator Byrnes claimed guaranteeing the Emperors safety

would look weak to the American people. In the final draft the Postman Declaration

asked Japan for unconditional surrender. If the United States had included the

guarantee of the Emperors safety they may have achieved their end goals

(demilitarization and democratization) while saving American and Japanese lives.

While the U.S. Army under general McArthur favored a mainland invasion,

the U.S. Navy and Army air force favored a blockade (as the number of casualties

would be much lower [1]). Harry Truman favored the Armys plan since he believed

the American people would not be willing to support a war lasting a year longer

than the defeat of Germany. There are only two areas in Japan available for an

amphibious assault; the Tokyo plain (Kanto plain) and Kyushu (southwestern

island) and Japan was massing forces to defend those areas. However in June and

July 1945, new military intelligence showed there were more Japanese divisions in

Kyushu than originally expected and the mainland invasion plan was being

reconsidered [1]. Based on that new information it is highly possible U.S. plans

would have switched to a blockade strategy. Some U.S. policy makers at the time

worried Japan would hold out one or two years under a blockade strategy, however

the Army air force were sure they could bring Japan to defeat within months.

(Posthumous analysis predicted Japan would have surrender by November 1945

solely due to an air blockade and bombings [1]). U.S. leadership feared Americans

would grow tired of the war and give up. These fears are legitimate however I
believe a serious campaign to the American people would have convinced them

keep support for the war. The U.S. was winning and a winning war is generally

popular. I believe the U.S. too quickly considered using the most destructive weapon

ever created to end the war quickly.

Its important to note the United States launched the first atomic bomb

before the Russian invasion. At the time some of the U.S. leadership believed the

Russian invasion would have prompted Japan to surrender [1]. If the U.S. leadership

was truly using the atomic bomb as a last restore they could have waited until after

the Russian invasion.

Other typical arguments are presented as: the firebombing was more

gruesome than the nuclear bombs. The damage done to the firebombed cities was

done over many weeks with hundreds of planes. The damage done to Hiroshima and

Nagasaki was done instantly and by one plane and a single bomb. The radiation

damage aftermath was not well known but all the other destructive power was

extremely well known by the military and the scientists [1]. This was clearly an

immoral weapon that should never been used. Using it on civilians or using it all sets

a bad precedence and weakness the moral high ground of the war. Its a disgrace

that the United States is the only such a country to such a weapon when they were

viable alternatives.

Based on my understanding of the book The Making of the Atomic Bomb

the United States made the decision to use the atomic bomb in April. Potential plans

were made to drop the bomb in Tokyo bay but U.S. leaders believe an empty threat

should not be made as it a sign of weakness. I believe a bomb dropped in the less
devastating area such as the Tokyo bay (one U.S. leadership idea) would have been

an effective warning to encourage surrender. Thinking a warning as sign of

weakness was absurd in a situation where United States was in an upmost position

of strength while the Japanese were engaged in futile self-destructive defense.

Overall I think the United States acted inappropriately by dropping the

atomic bombs when it wasnt absolutely necessary. I believe the U.S. was attracted

to unleashing the power of this new weapon. In addition the U.S. considered too

greatly the American attitudes at home when the leadership decided a swift end to

the war was necessary. Waiting for the Russian invasion, using a blockade strategy

or negotiating guarantees for the Emperor could have served as viable solutions that

did not include the atomic bomb. As noted before posthumously we know an air

and sea blockade strategy would have likely resulted in Japan to surrendering by

November.



Sources:

1. http://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-
abombdecision/

2. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-
publications/books-and-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan-signals-
intelligence-u-s-invasion-planning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html

3. Wikipedia articles

4. Stuff I remembered from college history classes and high school history classes

5. Memories of talking to my grandma who did research about this topic (but came to a
different conclusion)

6. Talking to my dad who read Wikipedia articles about this because we are bored in
Maine