Essay: To A-Bomb or not to A-Bomb?

Essay:  To A-Bomb or not to A-Bomb?


     In August of 1945, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
"nuked" by the first two Atomic Bombs ever used in combat.  The
usage of the Atomic Bombs ended World War II; yet, their usage has
been criticized by some as being "immoral."  There are some general
facts that the critics ignore such as the invasion plans, Kamikaze
Japanese, Japanese culture and religion, and the likely casualty
rate that the invasion would entail.  In this essay, I will show
just why the dropping of the A-Bombs was necessary and how those who
criticize the decision live in a "Fantasy Land."

     It is my view that the decision to drop the A-Bombs was the correct
choice.  It has been estimated that the invasion would have cost
the United States about one million casualties not to mention the
financial cost that such an operation would impose.  Because of
logistics and Kamikazes, it would have been difficult to supply the
troops.

     Because thee Japanese saw themselves as being "shields of the 
Emperor" and because patriotism was an integral part of the Japanese
religion, there would have been fierce resistance with high casualty
rates on both sides being the likely outcome.  Another hassle would have
been that of redeployment,  for even by March 1, 1946, only the 13th and 20th
Armored and  the 97th Infantry Divisions would have  been completely redeployed from Europe to the Pacific (the 13th and 20th Armored Divisions comprised the XIIICorps of the Eighth Army - it was formerly a part of the Ninth Army).
This would have caused the war to last well past 1946 and, at least, 
to mid-1947 with vast social repercussions in the United States. 
Because of the Japanese belief in the "sacredness" of the Japanese
Homeland, the Japanese would have fought with great ferocity until all
Japan was conquered, and even then, they could have resorted to guerrilla warfarewhich would have caused the war to last even longer.  In the end, Japan
would have been devastated with millions dead and millions more helpless. And so,I make my case that dropping the two A-Bombs was the correct
choice.

     There are those who criticize the decision to drop the A-Bomb as
being "immoral."  They believe that it was "unjust" for us to drop
the A-Bomb on "innocent civilians."  The decision has been called
inhuman because 200,000 civilians were killed in the bombings with
the effects of radiation lasting even now.  There are even some who
claim that we "nuked Japan" to "make Russia more compliant in the
post-war world.  Such are the claims of the A-Bomb critics.

     It should be noted that we did not know whether or not the A-Bomb
would work because, after all, the A-Bomb was an experimental
weapon and experimental weapons have been known to fail in the
past.  This would serve to refute the old argument that we could
have warned the Japanese and instead wasted a desert island (if
Japan does have a desert island).  Besides why warn the Japanese of
our A-Bombs since the Japanese didn't warn us before December 7th,
1941?

     It should be noted that even troops who weren't scheduled (yet) to
be redeployed (meaning the XIII Corps of the Ninth Army and the
entire First Army) were nervous about invading Japan.  I talked to
Mr. Paul Walthers, Platteville Middle School social studies
teacher, who served in the XXII Corps of the Fifteenth Army during
the last few months of the  war.  Mr. Walther stated, "I would say
that the A-Bombs gave us relief because then we didn't have to go
to Japan- we knew that if we went, we might not come back."

     Then there ere the immoral Japanese tactics of the Kamikazes - both
airplane and submarine - which cost our forces dearly.  Because the
Japanese High Command had been hoarding thousands of Kamikazes for
the invasion, we would have paid dearly in lives and materiel.  The
terrain in Japan would have caused our troops much difficulty
because Japan has a mountain chain which rivals our Rocky
Mountains.

     It should also be pointed out that the Russians had no real 
intentions of invading Japan, for their army (which was facing its
own redeployment hassles) was facing stiff Japanese resistance in
Manchuria until Japan surrendered.  It should be noted that, Japan
surrendered only with the shocking knowledge that we could
devastate whole cities at will.  Even then, they just barely
surrendered.  We had no remaining A-Bombs!  The Japanese refusal to
surrender and our A-Bomb deficiency would have combined to force us
to invade Japan anyway.  Besides, using the A-Bomb didn't make
Russia any more compliant after the war so this "nukes" that
particular argument.  And so, the anti-A-Bomb arguments have been
shot down by both hard historical facts and realistic reasoning.

     And so, in summation, when we hold such "look back and criticize"
debates, we must look at the facts alternative plans, instead of
the "philosophy and morality" of the matter.