In a time of war, a country has the right to do whatever is necessary for it's survival and victory. But eventually, that time of war will pass, and then the country will have to live with what they had done during the war. As the creators and first and only users of the atomic bomb, the US now has to deal with the aftermath of using it. The intelligence of using the bomb on Japan after World War II is undeniable. The morality and intelligence of having used it, now 63 years later, is not.
America entered into the war primarily because of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, yet for five long, devastating years, fought the German army. They suffered, struggled and fought in vicious battles against a country that hadn't yet touched them in a war held halfway around the world. Soldiers fought in Normandy and witnessed their friends and fellow soldiers ripped apart, many dying agonizing deaths as they literally cried out to family members they would never see again as their comrades either watched helplessly or tried unsuccessfully to keep them alive long enough to get a medic close. They fought in Bastogne and witnessed a new kind of hell on earth. So many American soldiers died in a foreign land, just wanting to see their loved ones one last time and feeling as if they had let their country down. We would call this a nightmare, but to the many across seas, it was life. Horror in war is going to be experienced either way, that's the risk a country takes when it attacks another. War itself isn't moral, but that never stops world leaders. The same argument applies to using the atomic bombs.
One of the biggest arguments made by supporters of America's use of the bombs is that using the weapon may have saved more lives than an invasion of the mainland. While there is no way to be sure, the numbers from the battles leading up to this do add up. The death and devastation from both the atomic bombs was less than the casualties from the Battle of Okinawa, and an attempt to get into Japan's mainland was estimated to bring about more than 1.5 million deaths on the Allied side alone. The consideration for human life is evident, as well as consideration for the soldiers who had just served in one major war. It would not be very moral to make them risk their lives once more on another terrifying battlefield when they were so close to being discharged.
Perhaps one of the most important observances of this is that the US accomplished exactly what they had hoped to. The atomic bombs did indeed end the war. But at what price?
The only "immoral" idea of using the bombs in my mind is that they weren't dropped on soldiers, they were dropped on citizens. Soldiers may witness hell, but they know what they are getting into when they volunteer. The Japanese citizens did nothing but wake up in the morning and die while going about their lives. I don't believe we had the right to attack the people.
Another thing we did not have the right to do is introduce that kind of technology to mankind. Once scientists find a "weapon of mass destruction" is possible, they are going to find a way to create and utilize it. This kind of thing would spread through the world, as it very well has, and a weapon of this power is too much. During the war, using the bombs were the best way to go, because they saved so many lives. But after that kind of weapon is used, it will be duplicated. Humanity may not be able to survive itself with the power we've put into the hands of many leaders. Right now, the US has enough nuclear power to destroy the world five times over. It's the same for many other countries. Saving a million lives in the twentieth century may end the world in the twenty first. There was no way to know this would happen back then. There was also no reason to assume it wouldn't.
Morality in a time of war cannot be questioned because war itself is immoral. I don't believe there is any question of morality in World War II from using the atomic bombs. It was obviously the best thing to do, the only hope for some soldiers, and the promise of a quick end to this ongoing war. But that one decision may have changed warfare forever. If history repeats itself, as it often does, and we have a third world war, I don't think humanity will be able to escape itself. We've already been threatened with the monster we've created by mentally unstable leaders in North Korea and Russia. We invade countries we believe may have weapons of mass destruction; we also can't stop them. We may very well have brought about the end of the war with our ultimate weapon, with our unmerciful intelligence, and with our "perfect solution" to end our biggest war yet.
