Approaching the 72nd Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: the Bombings that Saved Millions

Although peace is essential and bombs, in most cases, are unfavorable, the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. Not only did America’s aggressiveness define the country as a superpower, but it saved the lives of many. If hand-to-hand fighting occurred, the risk existed that Japanese soldiers would continue using disastrous defense methods while the U.S. acted more passively. Before Truman made his decision and the American troops had retaken the Pacific islands, the Japanese treated them like animals. They executed savagery and torture by killing and holding American fighters as war prisoners under inhumane conditions. Moreover, from the bombings, around 200,000 died; if the battle was fought on land, though, it is estimated that around ten million casualties would have resulted. Coupled with a higher number of casualties, close combat would have cost a great amount monetarily. Due to the fact that money was saved, America had the chance to productively impact other countries through loans and developmental assistance.

In opposition of the attacks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many often argue that the bombs depicted impatience and a failure of statesmanship. In many ways, though, the bombs established America’s status as a world power. The leverage of the attacks impressed many nations—such as the USSR—whom, in turn, listened and looked up to America. Subsequently, Truman’s decision kickstarted America’s dominant reputation, especially in its militaristic endeavors, reconstructing international relations. Stalin, specifically, was shaken and lost confidence. As a result, America amassed tremendous influence in Europe because Germany took its advice and grew more independent from the Soviet Union. Without this power, the Cold War may have looked different for America, impacting the nation’s future forever. Would the United States still exist as the strongest nation?

Following the bombings, in addition to intimidating other countries, America gained confidence. Years later, during the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred when Kennedy was president. Due to America’s increased self-assurance, the country and its leader were ready to take action. Rather than sitting back, not moving, and potentially being bombed, Kennedy and his advisors asserted their stance: they would not back down if threatened. Although the Kennedy administration was able to successfully solve the crisis without using nuclear weapons, that might not always be the case. At the end of the day, if atomic bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki–a courageous gesture depicting dominance and strength–the nation would not have been as confident in future conflicts. Because the atomic bombs solidified its standing, today, the American government maintains that it is not intimidated to use nuclear weapons, signaling that aggression is acceptable in war. Even though, morally, the U.S. does not wish to use such destructive weapons, in some cases, when attempting to defend, such extremes are justified. Often, in order to successfully protect and guard, control is impossible.