What are ethics? Ethics are a set of morals humans as a society choose to live by. They are often hard to define, because while there can be generalities in the ethics of people (i.e., most people believe theft and murder are unethical), just like fingerprints, each ethical code is different. People may stand by their position more strongly in some ethical debates, and less so in others. Ethics are by no means black and white, and yet, it is society’s’ duty to determine definitively what is moral and immoral. A large, and ongoing debate in ethics is on the ethicality of nuclear weapons, or, more specifically, the ethicality of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2. While there is still much debate, it should be argued that the nuclear bombings were indeed ethical. This is because the Allies tried to prevent as many civilian casualties as they could, since it ended war with the fanatic Japanese military, and due to the fact it gave the United States a more prominent role in negotiations.
In the bombing of Hiroshima, there were two main ethical codes at play – those of the Japanese, and those of the Americans. The Americans were dragged into the World War by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour, and ever since, has resented the Japanese. This was shown through the U.S.’s use of internment camps for the Japanese, but interestingly not for the rest of the Axis. Americans generally believed that war was only justified because of Japan’s direct attack- before this the U.S. had adopted a more isolationist stance. When this completely changed however, the U.S. transformed itself into one of the best war machines in the world, the economy revitalized and production booming. With this, and the help of a certain Einstein, it decided to sink $2 billion into the Manhattan Project, in order to find a way to end the war in the Pacific (and at the time, in Europe as well). The U.S. was facing problems securing islands from the fanatical Japanese, who would fight to the death. It had managed to finally push within bombing distance of most of Japan’s cities, and so, the time was perfect to invest in this war ending bomb. America was focused on ending the war, and as Winston Churchill (speaking on behalf of the Allies) later said, “We felt that [before using the atom bomb], every inducement to surrender, compatible with our declared policy, should be set before them. This we owed to our consciences before using this awful weapon.”, showing that this was not a one-sided affair (Churchill). While the Allied commanders did what was best for the allies, they did not ignore the fact that Japan would suffer casualties never seen before due to the use of the bomb.
On the other side, Japan was facing a disaster trying to hold onto its grip in the pacific. The U.S. had incapacitated most of its fleet, and at this point, many generals knew they were fighting a losing battle. However, due to the bushido code which they all swore to live by, they could not surrender. To them, it was impossible. Their ethical code was much deeper engraved than the Judeo-Christian ethic was in America. While Americans were more free to behave as they pleased and believed, Japanese citizens either lived by the emperor or did not deserve to live at all. Such extremism is what prompted the use of atomic bombs. In the influential book Hiroshima, a Hiroshima survivor was interviewed. And rather than recalling hate for the Americans, they recalled that most victims simply accepted it. They felt like it was good to die, so long as they died for the emperor. Not even Hitler bested Hirohito’s cultural grip on his nation. And so long as Hirohito would not surrender, Japan wouldn’t either.
The big question, however, is whether Japan could surrender without the U.S. having to drop the atomic bombs. The generals, still loyal to the emperor, both knew they were fighting a tough war against the Americans without their Japanese navy. They could either turn to the Soviets to act as a mediator in peace negotiations, or they could try to hold out and inflict more casualties in order to secure better peace treaty terms. But, if the Soviets invaded, both plans would be ruined. This is because, according to a report in a joint journal by Harvard and MIT, “The difficulties of fighting a decisive battle on two fronts at once would have been clear.”, especially since the Japanese were outnumbered and outgunned 5 to 1 to the Soviets (Wilson 166). Little did Japan know that President Truman and the late President Roosevelt had already managed to convince Stalin to begin an invasion of Manchuria (at that point a Japanese territory) as well. In accordance with this, “Truman did not threaten Stalin with the bomb, recognizing instead that its existence alone would limit Soviet options and be considered a threat to Soviet security”, bringing about the start of atomic diplomacy (Office of the Historian). Even as the Japanese thought nothing special of the bomb, it “was [really] intended to gain a stronger position for postwar diplomatic bargaining with the Soviet Union, as the weapons themselves were not needed to force the Japanese surrender.” (Office of the Historian) So on the early hours of August 9th, 1945, the Soviets pushed ahead while an American B-29 Bomber, named Bockscar, was getting ready to deliver the “Fat Man” nuke to Nagasaki.
The final point to make is how dropping the bomb affected the United State’s stance in peace negotiations. This is important in arguing its ethicality. The U.S. knew that the Soviet invasion was going to give the Soviet Union a lot of influence in an occupation agreement of Japan. If the Soviet Union were to out-influence the U.S., this would mean more Japanese land in Soviet control. There is almost no doubt that Stalin would exploit this land under his communist regime, subjecting the people to the iron fist of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the United States had a much more ethical future in mind for Japan, and mainly followed a plan of occupation, to transition, to returning sovereign control. As history has shown, this is exactly what happened, and post-war Japan is now the greatest success story to come out of the war. If Japan was split like Germany was, the world would see another conflict like East-West Germany, and this is precisely what happened in Korea, albeit with communist China, not the Soviet Union. The argument whether communism is unethical is still debatable, but Stalin’s oppressive policies are textbook for what is unethical. And so in dropping the nuclear bombs, “U.S. policymakers hoped that the U.S. monopoly on nuclear technology and the demonstration of its destructive power in Japan might influence the Soviets to make concessions, either in Asia or in Europe”, effectively scaring away the Soviets from demanding too much in Japan (Office of the Historian). While the Japanese thought of the bomb as nothing special, but by demonstrating their power, the U.S. prevented Japan from the perils of being split between two nations- which history has shown that it leads to many a humanitarian crisis.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ethical and justified in the positions of the leaders of the time. Ethics is a hard subject to argue, however, if dropping the atomic bomb saved more lives than the contrary would have, then that must certainly be ethical. In the seat of President Truman, he saw two paths- a path that would lead Japan to be under brutal Soviet control, or a path that would allow the U.S. to help Japan rebuild. But, because of the new, and terrifying nature of the bomb, the public quickly shifted to a very cold stance on nuclear weapons. Because of this, the world often forgets that it’s the same nuclear weapons that ensured a third world war, or for that matter, another total war, could not ensue with nuclear capable nations. In the end, Japan was simply too brainwashed for its emperor to think rationally. Fighting their fervor would cost thousands of American lives, and millions of Japanese lives. Even while the bomb did not discriminate against the innocent and the guilty, the United States tried to warn civilians of the attack beforehand. For these reasons, it is clear that it was not the U.S. which was guilty for dropping the bomb- it was Japan’s government and military for their instigation of war, and for their fanaticism for their emperor. The bomb was only a consequence of their actions, and while terrifyingly powerful, it was completely justified and ethical.
Works Cited
- Wilson, Ward. “The Winning Weapon?: Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima.” International Security. vol. 31, no. 4, Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007, http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/is3104_pp162-179_wilson.pdf
- “Milestones 1945-1952: Atomic Diplomacy.” Office of the Historian. United States Department
- of State, 2017, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/atomic
- Churchill, Winston. “Debate on the Address.” United States Congress Archive. Mill Bank Systems, 16 August 1945, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1945/aug/16/debate-on-the-address#S5CV0413P0_19450816_HOC_43
- Frame, Drew. “The Effect of the Atomic Bombs Dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Washington State University, 20 January 2015, https://history105.libraries.wsu.edu/spring2015/2015/01/20/the-effect-of-the-atomic-bombs-dropped-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/
- Hersey, John. Hiroshima. 1946, Vintage Books, 1989