One of the most controversial moves of WWII was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
On the pro side, Henry I. Miller writes:"During World War I, Europe lost most of an entire generation of young men. Combatant fatalities alone were approximately 13 million. Memories of that era were still fresh three decades later. In 1945, Allied military planners and political leaders were correct, both tactically and morally, in not wanting to repeat history. It was their duty to weigh carefully the costs and benefits for the American people, present and future. Had they been less wise or less courageous, the American post-war “baby boomer” generation would have been much smaller."
However, not all agree that it was necessary to achieve victory.
Christopher Check, in his article
for Catholic Answers
writes:"[T]he vast majority of the victims were civilians. Why were the city
centers chosen as ground zero, where civilian populations were most
dense, rather than the industrial suburbs or the ports?
The bombings also violated the condition of proportionality. Necessarily
tied to the question of proportionality is the insistence on
“unconditional surrender,” which inevitably inspires both sides to
resort to desperate means. Once an aggressor has been rendered neutral,
to drive him to accept humiliating terms does not meet the Church’s
requirement to seek peace by every possible means.
I personally am conflicted on this issue. Part of me says that it was necessary to end the war and to get Japan to surrender; however, some sources say that Japan was already ready to surrender - they just weren't willing to submit to US terms. On that side, the bombs would not be justified because it caused great civilian loss for little benefit.
- Was the US justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki8 votes