What’s worse? One bomb that kills 70,000 people or a thousand bombs that do the same? In the end, both scenarios are tragically wrong.
As we approach the 80th anniversary of the bombings in Hiroshima, people will again argue whether using atomic weapons was justified or not. Often, the conversation leans heavily on the word “necessary,” while the word “evil” gets overlooked.
From my perspective as a Marine Corps veteran, targeting civilians during war is unequivocally wrong. Yet, when wars erupt, we should aim to minimize harm. This is something the United States has sidestepped for quite some time. Israel seems to be going down the same path now. Looking back at Japan’s experience with the atomic bomb, it seems that President Harry Truman acted in a way he believed would shorten the conflict and save lives. It wasn’t a right move, but perhaps it was seen as the least terrible among flawed options.
Having read extensively about World War II, I think many who delve into the subject stumble upon a startling reality eventually.
The Nazis, after their defeat at Stalingrad, attempted to regain control in Kursk and failed. They quickly understood they were on the defensive and lacked the numbers to win outright.
Japan realized that a swift victory against the United States was vital; they simply couldn’t maintain their military strength against the expansive American capabilities.
Yet, instead of reassessing their strategies, both regimes escalated their violence. The Germans persisted in their campaign of extermination, including the horrific genocide of Jews. Meanwhile, Japan adopted brutal tactics against Americans and civilians out of fear.
This led the US and its allies to redefine warfare, embracing the concept of total war. We went beyond targeting military assets and bombed cities, believing this would compel submission. The result? Millions of lives lost, with the hope that this would lead to surrender.
It seems that bombing doesn’t win hearts. Decades of conflict showed us that both the German and Japanese populations often stood by their governments, even as destruction spread.
In the Pacific theater, options for the US were dire. An invasion of Japan would lead to catastrophic casualties. A blockade could starve millions. Continuous bombings in cities like Tokyo and Dresden were another alternative. They could demand unconditional surrender, which might have left the Japanese leadership intact.
Truman likely didn’t think dropping a bomb was a good idea; however, it was the most drastic option. The bomb indeed had its terrifying impact, making it clear that Japan could not afford to sacrifice countless lives to kill fewer Americans. This sentiment resonates even today.
I’m not suggesting nuclear weapons should be used in any current conflicts, including Gaza. The lesson from Hiroshima is that we need to prioritize minimizing harm, ensuring we don’t reach a point where dropping a bomb seems like the only option.
History has shown us that firebombings in Tokyo and Dresden often led to increased solidarity with oppressive governments. After America devastated North Korea, many wondered why the population still supported the Kim regime.
Similarly, in Vietnam, bombing with napalm didn’t weaken support for the Viet Cong; instead, it galvanized it.
In Gaza, Israel’s bombardment and tactics are starving the civilian population. War is inevitably messy; it’s simplistic to think humanity will avoid conflict indefinitely. Unfortunately, we often resort to extreme measures, believing they’ll resolve wars, even as they disproportionately affect civilians.
Gaza certainly doesn’t need more bombs, nuclear or otherwise. We must grasp that civilians will not react positively to such aggression. Instead, they tend to align with those responsible for their predicament—whether that’s oppressive regimes or militant groups—while distancing themselves from those causing their suffering.
The crucial takeaway from Hiroshima is that we must always seek the least destructive options, and we should strive to prevent situations where the most destructive options become the only choices left.
