The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb on Japan: Right or wrong?


With the Trinity test of July, 1945, it was obvious that the atomic bomb would work. But the war with Germany was over and it couldn't be used there. The war with Japan, however, was far from over, but it was obvious that an invasion of the mainland of Japan would be needed to defeat Japan. The big question then was: should the A bomb be used against Japan? As expected, there were arguments on both sides. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the stubbornness of the Japanese at Okinawa, Iwo Jima and other places in the Pacific, showed that surrender was a foreign word to them. They would likely fight to the last man, and a large number of American and Allied soldiers would no doubt be lost in the process. In addition, Tokyo had been firebombed almost to oblivion and the Japanese still refused to surrender.
     Many  people, however, worried about the ramifications of using the A bomb. The scientist Leo Szilard was one of the most vocal. He tried desperately to meet with President Truman; he even sent him a petition that had been signed by 53 scientists. He argued that the destructive power of the bomb should be demonstrated to the Japanese first. Truman apparently looked closely at both sides of the argument and decided to go ahead with the bombing. After all, air raids using conventional bombs had already produced devastating effects equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT, which was energy equivalent of the A bomb, and the Japanese had still not surrendered.
     Two atomic bombs were therefore dropped: one on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and one on Nagasaki on August 9. A few days later the Japanese surrendered.
     Many people are still debating whether we needed to drop the bombs  -- in particular, whether we needed to drop two bombs. What is your opinion?

Barry Parker, author of "The Physics of War: From Arrows to Atoms