Moral Dilemmas In The Bombing Of Hiroshima

709 Words2 Pages

People often deal with moral dilemmas in which they have two options that are equally right and wrong. If one side from a situation is thought to be right and the other wrong altogether depends on the person’s moral view. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, some people may or may not agree that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary. This topic is a moral dilemma however the Japanese did attempt to seek peace several ways to end the war and the United States’ justifications for bombing their cities appear irrational. The first attempt that the Japanese sought for peace was when they sent out a secret memorandum to the United States. American officials knew about Japan’s leaders seeking for a way to end the war. As early on in September 1944, Japanese peace feelers had been sent out. Although, the real effort to end the war began in mid-April of 1945 when the Japanese leaders searched for a way to modify the surrender terms. Even though American officials knew about the Japanese’s attempts to end the war, the United States either way …show more content…

President Truman said that the use of the atomic bomb saved “millions of lives” and brought the war to a quick end. However, ¬¬¬¬Long says there is no conclusive answer towards the possibility of the war resulting with fewer deaths or ending any sooner. Truman also said, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians” (Webber). The United States Strategic Bombing Survey later on stated that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because of their activities and population, contradicting Truman’s statement. If the United States wanted to impress the leaders of Japan, they could have dropped the bomb elsewhere to give them a scare as well as one rather than

Open Document