The Seattle Times
BY
BILL DIETRICHSeattle Times staff reporter
Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop
the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. Here is a summary
of arguments on both sides:
Why the bomb was needed or justified:
• The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting
to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass
suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at
Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no
discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt
Japan's leadership to surrender.
• With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late
August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a
demonstration over an unpopulated area.
• An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides
that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
• The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.
• Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and
prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.
• The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war
quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint
occupation of Japan.
Maraline Ellis Salem-­‐Keizer School District 2013-­‐2014 Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified:
• Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities
had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home
islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the
Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in
Manchuria.
• American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand
to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly
prolonged Japan's resistance.
• A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have
convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many
people.
• Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough
time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing
Nagasaki.
• The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its
development.
• The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians
outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.
• Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between
the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant
damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear
weapons.
Copyright, 1995, Seattle Times Company
Maraline Ellis Salem-­‐Keizer School District 2013-­‐2014 The Seattle Times
BY
BILL DIETRICH (Copyright, 1995, Seattle Times Company) The Bradbury Science Museum at Los Alamos is an informative
mix of exhibits on the benefits and problems of nuclear energy. To
encourage balance, the museum provided a display wall for nuclear
critics and a notebook for visitors to write their thoughts . . .
Directions for teachers:
1. After students are familiar with the events surrounding the conclusion of
World War II in the Pacific and the arguments for and against using atomic
weapons against the Japanese, explain to students that even fifty years later
the topic remains controversial.
2. Make sets of each of these statements on individual cards or strips of paper.
In pairs, ask students to sort them in the following categories:
a. First, ask students to sort them using their own ideas, then provide the
following:
b. Those for and those against use of nuclear weapons.
c. Those for and against who provide a reason or reasons for their
opinion and those for and against who state their opinion but do not
really provide reasons or explanation.
d. Those whose point of view is better understood based on a piece of
information in the text (like the soldier in the Pacific who likely who
have faced more fighting had the weapons not been used).
e. Other categories?
3. Ask students to summarize what they learn using the attached graphic
organizer.
4. Compare responses among pairs or small groups of students.
#1
"We are free today because of what was done at Los Alamos."
A.S., North Carolina
Maraline Ellis Salem-­‐Keizer School District 2013-­‐2014 #2
"I still cringe from the fact that we dropped the first atomic bomb.
A shameful event in our history. Better to have had the ability to
do so, but to have used it to achieve an end to the war through the
threat of its use."
C.R.G., Connecticut
#3
"I personally cannot understand how we, the human race, can
proceed with production of deadly radiation waste of which we
have no means for disposal in a nontoxic form."
Dr. A.K., Michigan
#4
"Dwight Eisenhower had it right, all those years ago. Even were
we to ignore the massive loss and destruction to human life and the
environment (from the arms race) the true measure of loss is to be
found in the theft from human kind -- the unfed, the forgotten, the
uncared for."
J.K., Pennsylvania -- 'mother, wife, mathematician'
#5
"Just remember who started the war -- how many Americans they
killed needlessly, and who the liberals would be subject to if we
had lost!"
R.B., no home state listed
#6
"The Cold War is over but nuclear submarines still prowl. Why?"
J.M., no home state listed
Maraline Ellis Salem-­‐Keizer School District 2013-­‐2014 #7
"We as humans are imperfect. What makes us think we can
perform to the tolerances needed to safeguard against such perfect
instruments of death? Ego? What if we allowed future generations
to vote on programs that affect them? They would essentially say,
'To hell with your VCRs, TVs, extravagant cars, homes and
clothes. We'd rather have clean air, water and earth upon which to
merely survive.'"
L.H., Oregon
#8
"As a member of the Jewish faith, I fully support development of
the atomic bomb, if it meant that the Nazis could not have
developed it first. Had that happened, many religions would have
been exterminated and the world would be very different today."
N.C., no home state listed
#9
"As an engineer I appreciate the enormous technical challenges
overcome here at Los Alamos. As a man of God, I recognize the
horrors that came about as a result. However, I also know that had
this nation not pursued this line of research and then found the
resolve to use it, another less conscientious nation would have and
this world would today be a different, less friendly place to live."
J.Y., no home state listed
#10
"We are just a speck in the universe. We have placed too much
importance on ourselves as a species. May we be more humble and
not lose our innocence in the face of nature."
C.B., Ontario
Maraline Ellis Salem-­‐Keizer School District 2013-­‐2014 #11
"In August 1945 I was a rifle company commander engaging in
exercises on Leyte Island to invade Japan. When the bomb
exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, every American in the
South Pacific breathed easier. Many -- most? -- survived when
they probably would have perished. War is hell, but if one must be
a part of it, it is better to survive than die."
S.K., no home state listed
#12
"In science and technology, we need an emphasis on ethics that are
not based in any particular religious tradition. We need to focus
more on the cancer-like impact on the planet of human overpopulation. We'd probably have fewer wars if we had fewer people
-- people who appreciate the earth instead of trying to gouge
everything possible from it."
Maraline Ellis S.S., Massachusetts
Salem-­‐Keizer School District 2013-­‐2014 Analysis of Visitor Statements at The Bradbury Science Museum at Los Alamos Statement # What do we know about the person who wrote it? What might influence their ideas or point of view? Summary: for or against use of nuclear weapons or power Maraline Ellis Salem-­‐Keizer School District 2013-­‐2014