logo
Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a moral necessity

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a moral necessity

This week marks the 80th anniversary of President Truman's fateful decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (respectively, Aug. 6 and 9, 1945). To date, those two bombings represent the only instances in which nuclear weapons have been deployed in war. At least 150,000 Japanese perished — a majority of them civilians. But the bombings were successful in achieving their intended effect: Japan announced its formal surrender to the Allies six days after the second bombing, finally bringing the bloodiest conflict in human history to an end.
For decades, ethical opposition to Truman's decision has mostly come from left-wing critics. That seems to be changing. Last year, Tucker Carlson claimed that nuclear weapons were created by 'demonic' forces and asserted that the United States was 'evil' for dropping the bomb on Japan. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also posted a highly peculiar video in June that, while falling short of apologizing for the bombs, did pointedly warn of 'warmongers' who are bringing the world to the brink of 'nuclear holocaust.'
This is misguided. Looking back eight decades later, Truman's decision deserves not condemnation but a tragic and grudging gratitude. It was the right decision, and America must never apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Critics often portray Truman's decision as an act of monstrous brutality — a flex of raw military might by a sadistic and trigger-happy superpower. But such characterizations, drenched in presentist moral narcissism, do a grave disservice to the reality on the ground and the countless lives Truman undoubtedly saved. They are also a grave disservice to the memory of all those killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Carlson and his fellow ultra-pacifists should visit Pearl Harbor and stand over the sunken USS Arizona, the final resting place of more than 900 sailors and Marines. One can still see and smell the oil leaking from the ships, all these decades later; it is an extraordinary experience.
Shocking sensory intakes aside, the sober reality is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no matter how morbid and macabre, were strategically and morally correct.
When Truman authorized the use of the atomic bombs, he faced a truly appalling alternative: a full-scale land invasion of Japan. Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, had projected American and Japanese casualties potentially reaching as high as a million lives each. Imperial Japan, steeped in a kamikaze warrior ethos, had proven time and again — at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and elsewhere — that it would fight to the last man, woman and child. Schoolchildren were being trained to attack American troops with sharpened bamboo sticks. Fighting to the death was not mere speculation; it was core doctrine.
The underdiscussed truth is that imperial Japan was just as ruthless as its Nazi German wartime ally. And the atomic bombs — absolutely horrific though they were — finally shocked Japan into surrender. They punctured its carefully curated myth of divine invincibility and left Tokyo's bellicose leadership with no doubt that continued resistance could only mean annihilation.
More than 100,000 Americans had already been killed in the Pacific theater, and those who had survived were overjoyed by Truman's decision: They knew they would live and return home to their families.
Truman's decision also affirmed a deeper American nationalistic sentiment: that from an American perspective, the safety and security of American lives must necessarily be prioritized over foreign lives. Truman did not see any moral virtue in sacrificing our soldiers on the altar of an abstract globalism or a relativistic humanitarianism. His first obligation as commander in chief was to protect American lives by securing a final, unconditional end to the war. In this, he succeeded — resoundingly.
Critics often claim Japan was already on the brink of surrender. They point to back-channel diplomacy and note the Soviet declaration of war the day prior to the bombing of Nagasaki. But Truman didn't have the benefit of postwar memoirs or archival research. He had bloodied maps, hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, grieving families and military intelligence suggesting the Japanese army would never accept unconditional surrender without a shock so great it shattered their will to fight.
This, too, reflects a clarity that modern Western leaders often lack: the resolve to act decisively, to bear the weight of terrible decisions in pursuit of peace and justice. Truman's choice was not only militarily sound but morally defensible. Nor were the bombings, as many armchair critics have argued over the decades, a form of ethical utilitarianism; Truman's decision to bomb was simply reflective of how real war-and-peace decisions must be made in the heat of the moment.
It is fashionable now to question the morality of Truman's decision from the safety of the present. But it is an act of historical myopia to pretend that the atomic bombings were gratuitous or overly callous. They were not. They were the tragic price of a brutal victory and the necessary cost of hard-fought peace.
War, we know, is hell. Indeed, that is a very good reason to avoid starting wars in the first place. But once upon a time, Western societies understood that once a horrific war has been initiated, there can be no substitute for absolute victory. That lesson has long been forgotten. It is past time to learn it once again.
Josh Hammer's latest book is 'Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.' This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New forever stamp honors Former President Jimmy Carter
New forever stamp honors Former President Jimmy Carter

American Press

time29 minutes ago

  • American Press

New forever stamp honors Former President Jimmy Carter

Special to the American Press The U.S. Postal Service announced on Aug. 16, that a commemorative forever stamp will be issued honoring former President Jimmy Carter, who died Dec. 29, 2024, at the age of 100. The Postal Service plans to release the stamp for purchase on Oct. 1 in Atlanta, on what would have been former President Carter's 101st birthday. Representatives of the Friends of Jimmy Carter, the National Park Service and the U.S. Postal Service unveiled the stamp art on August 16, at the Jimmy Carter National Historical Park in Plains. 'The stamp program celebrates the best in American culture, places and people, and it is difficult to consider a more fitting honoree than former President Jimmy Carter. In his support and leadership of his beloved community, state, and nation, he lent his quiet, thoughtful and deliberate energy around causes he believed in, and most certainly in his conduct and accomplishments as a former President, Jimmy Carter truly personified the best in America. I am honored to participate in the reveal of this stamp art which fully evokes his humanity,' said Peter Pastre the Postal Service's government relations and public policy vice president. Kim Carter Fuller, executive director of the Friends of Jimmy Carter said, 'The Carter family and the Friends of Jimmy Carter are honored to be able to take part in revealing the design for President Carter's Forever stamp. Together we've had the distinct privilege of a front row seat to his life and legacy, and today's reveal gives the world an opportunity to share his legacy with others on a daily basis.' From his origins in small-town Georgia, Carter came to the White House as an outsider who represented a new generation of progressive Southern politicians. Carter was inaugurated as the 39th president on Jan. 20, 1977. During his term Carter would make humility and reconciliation recurring themes in his presidency. Carter made a mark with his appointments of many women and minorities to government positions. He created a presidential commission on mental health, established new cabinet departments, and greatly increased the size of the National Park System and federally designated wilderness areas. Mindful of the nation's fiscal position, he was deeply concerned with trying to balance the federal budget and control inflation. In his efforts to improve the economy, he ushered through deregulation in several industries, including energy and air travel. On the world stage, Carter was praised for personally negotiating the Camp David Accords, providing a framework for peace in the Middle East. He signed SALT II, a treaty with the Soviet Union to limit strategic nuclear arms, and he initiated a major change in foreign policy when he announced that the United States would officially recognize and establish formal diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. After leaving the presidency, Carter became a prominent activist for peace, human rights and social and economic progress around the world. In 1982, he partnered with Emory University to establish the Carter Center, which advances democracy, monitors elections, mediates disputes and works to prevent tropical diseases in the world's poorest nations. In recognition of his efforts, he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 — cementing his reputation as one of the most active and impactful former presidents. The stamp art is a 1982 oil-on-linen painting created as a life study by artist Herbert E. Abrams (1921-2003) in preparation for painting his official White House portrait. Ethel Kessler, an art director for USPS, designed the stamp.

Andrew Tate sues Meta and TikTok for ‘deplatforming'
Andrew Tate sues Meta and TikTok for ‘deplatforming'

The Hill

time29 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Andrew Tate sues Meta and TikTok for ‘deplatforming'

Conservative influencer Andrew Tate and his brother, Tristan Tate, are suing Meta and TikTok over what they describe as the 'unlawful and politically motivated decision' to deplatform the pair on their social media sites. The Tate brothers, who were banned from TikTok and Meta's Instagram and Facebook in 2022, filed lawsuits against both companies last week, alleging a 'coordinated campaign to suppress, silence, and destroy the reputations and livelihoods' of the two men. 'This campaign was carried out not merely by private actors, but in concert with government officials, media operatives, and ideological pressure groups—thus transforming Meta into a state actor for purposes of constitutional liability,' the filing reads. A similar statement also appears in the TikTok lawsuit. The brothers argue that the banning of their accounts amounts to a breach of contract and caused substantial financial losses, bringing a dozen claims against both Meta and TikTok. They dispute the companies' rationales for banning them, arguing that claims they promoted dangerous individuals or incited misogyny 'lacked substantiation and were unsupported by adjudicated findings.' Andrew Tate is a self-described misogynist. Meta declined to comment. TikTok did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment. The Tate brothers, who are dual American and British citizens, face various charges in both the United Kingdom and Romania. British prosecutors charged both men with rape, human trafficking and actual bodily harm in May. Andrew Tate is also accused of controlling prostitution by the U.K. authorities. They face similar charges of human trafficking and sexual misconduct in Romania. The brothers have denied any wrongdoing. They returned to the U.S. earlier this year, where they received a chilly reception. After they landed in Miami in February, the Florida attorney general launched an investigation into the two men.

Put a fork in it: America First as a foreign policy doctrine is dead
Put a fork in it: America First as a foreign policy doctrine is dead

Boston Globe

time29 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Put a fork in it: America First as a foreign policy doctrine is dead

Advertisement Getting involved in that war — or even caring about it — seemed to ran counter to the 'America First' foreign policy Trump had long espoused. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Until recently, American interest in that war was mostly indirect, shaped by higher global energy prices and the possibility that if Russia swallowed Ukraine, Putin would soon be at the doorstep of a NATO ally that the United States is obligated to defend. Beyond that, most Americans were insulated from the consequences. Yet Trump's foreign policy involvement has gone far beyond Ukraine. He has personally stepped in to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Hamas, Syria, and Iran. He helped broker cease-fires between India and Pakistan, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Armenia and Azerbaijan. Through it all, Trump has been clear about what motivates him: he wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He has not only said as much publicly but reportedly Advertisement The problem, of course, is that none of those conflicts were inherently about America or American interests. Which begs the question: what happened to being 'America First'? The answer is that it is essentially dead. The doctrine has become yet another casualty of Trump's ever-shifting impulses, often changing with the last conversation he had or the latest shiny object to catch his attention. The real break may have come when Trump decided to For Trump, defending Israel has long been a priority. But if recent negotiations are any guide, he may now be prepared to extend a similar security umbrella to Ukraine as part of a larger peace deal. This is the precise kind of global policeman role Trump had once promised to reject. The original appeal of 'America First' was that it provided a blueprint for a nation exhausted by decades of costly foreign wars. It was a slogan meant to reassure voters that US soldiers would no longer be sent into conflicts with little direct bearing on their lives. Advertisement When Trump entered his second term, America First was very much alive. USAID was gutted as was Voice of America. The integrated free trade status quo was out, and tariffs were in. Trump would no longer defer to other nations' self-determination automatically, but famously But now, Trump has now positioned himself as the indispensable dealmaker for conflicts spanning multiple continents. His interventions may generate headlines and even, at times, reduce immediate bloodshed. But they also underscore the collapse of a once-defining principle of his political identity. In the end, America First is not so much a foreign policy doctrine as it is a rhetorical relic, one that Trump has discarded when it no longer suited his ambitions. What remains is not a coherent worldview but a collection of improvisations driven by ego, optics, and the pursuit of personal glory. What this means for the future of MAGA after Trump is very uncertain. There is an element of the base that certainly was drawn to this idea. But if there are Republicans who want to run for president in 2028 with more of an establishment view on foreign policy, they may no longer be perceived as out of touch. The loss of America First may also may help explain why foreign leaders are so eager to flock to the White House these days. They know that, for all his bluster about putting America first, Trump is now putting himself at the center of the world stage. And he is ready to change his mind again. James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store