The controversy surrounding the American decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan has been a spot of sore debate since the post-war period, henceforth remaining shrouded in quarrel to this day. On August 15th, 1945, President Truman sanctioned the use of the worlds first atomic weapon, decimating the city and population of Hiroshima, and only days three days later, the second was dropped on Nagasaki. The official narrative taught regarding the decision to drop the bomb, since the advent of it, and the post-war period, has been that American command brought a swift end to the war against Japan by forcing the enemy into surrender with the sheer brutality of the bomb, and hence, avoiding a full-scale land invasion of mainland Japan, ultimately saving countless American lives. However, historians …show more content…
Therefore, this brings into the question of whether the American decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally justifiable in the sense of the official narrative of saving American lives, as opposed to the position of Japan surrendering on its own, without the use of the bomb. With this in mind, yes, indeed the condemnation regarding the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan has been justified, with the bulk of historians on the subject reinforcing the criticism, whilst few argue otherwise. In order to understand the intricacies of the debate on the a-bomb decision, one has to comprehend the overall American bombing philosophy, as well as the Manhattan Project’s result: the development of the world’s first nuclear weapon. To begin, on December 17th, 1941, the United States was thrust into the Second World War with the Japanese surprise attack on the American naval base of Pearl Harbour. Thereby, setting the stage for anti-Japanese sentiment within the American