Moral Rationalizing 69 Years Later: The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima


Last year, I marked this atrocious anniversary with a blog post you can find here. And I assume every year hereafter, I will do another update; the 70th anniversary, the 71st anniversary and so on because its lesson still has not been learned and even worse, it’s still defended by Americans today.

In that post a year ago, I talked about Robert McNamara, a person involved in the nukes dropping and later Secretary of Defense for the Vietnam War, and he said about WWII, and the firebombings and the nukes, “We were behaving like war criminals, but what is immoral if you lose, but not if you win?” And that’s exactly it. We won, we get to write the narrative. And the narrative has been particularly spell-binding on the American people for the last 69 years.

We won the language of history, but we’ve lost the moral ground.

There’s no justification for utilizing a nuclear weapon, much less two of them. Much less after you’ve already firebombed most of their cities, anyway. Much less after they’ve already said they’d surrender. Much less after you said you wouldn’t accept their surrender because they wanted to keep their emperor and then they kept their emperor for decades thereafter, anyway.

It was a deliberate attack on a civilian population with a nuclear weapon. It has to be considered the worst terrorist attack in mankind’s history. And what’s even worse, we bombed Japan on August 14th! That’s five days after we dropped our second nuclear bomb, this time on Nagasaki. That’s extraordinary.


From the brilliant Anthony Gregory:

The fact that the US government killed more Japanese by fire bombings than by atomic bombing, the fact that the US government might have instead of dropping atomic bombs invaded Japan and racked up high casualties, and the fact that the Japanese government committed atrocities like the Rape of Nanking and aggressive war maneuvers like the attack on Pearl Harbor, do nothing at all to justify the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nothing. At. All. These non sequiturs are invoked in the desperate attempt to, in Orwell’s words, “make murder respectable.”

You cannot justify the atomic bombings morally. The attempt to do so pragmatically is a strike against pragmatism, and otherwise wrongheaded. It is a sad spectacle that Americans and others do not want to confront the massive terrorism conducted by the US government in WWII and in other conflicts. Until it becomes an uncontroversial fact that the United States has committed indefensible terrorism and war crimes, I see no hope for a major cultural shift toward peace or freedom. You must entirely renounce the obviously unjust to become a voice for justice, and if you think exterminating a hundred thousand civilians with a push of a button can ever be justified, then you have swallowed ethical collectivism whole, and all the government needs is a good enough sounding excuse and you will sign on to virtually any barbarism.

It’s clear to me that the use of the atomic bombs were partially driven by racism against the Japanese or as some call them, the “Japs.” And partially by our dick-waving to the Soviet Union and the rest of the world of, “Hey, look what we have, back off.”

In 1946, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey’s book, Japan’s Struggle to End the War, was published. It concluded that Japan would have surrendered without the bomb, without the Soviet declaration of war, and without even a U.S. invasion. That’s 1946. It’s 2014. Yet, we still buy into the propaganda that the bombs saved “millions” of American lives.

As Gregory says, targeting civilians to manipulate their government is the very definition of terrorism. And that’s we did. Twice.

I hope future generations of American come to realize the horror of what we did that day. Until then…




4 thoughts

  1. Your blog is disingenuous. You mentioned the “U.S Strategic Bombing Survey” and declare that it stated Japan would have surrendered without the bomb. You probably assumed nobody would read such an obscure reference piece. I did.

    “Japan’s Struggle to End the War” states,
    12 6. “The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender…[however the survey goes on to state]…they [the bombs] did foreshorten the war and expedite peace.”

    It’s obvious you have an agenda and this has clouded your judgment with bias.
    Please don’t try to manipulate opinion because you have an agenda. Please be truthful when explaining a complex situation such as the ending of the Pacific War and the dropping of the atomic bombs.


    1. Frederick, thank you for contributing your thoughts. I would politely disagree, however.

      I would advise to continue reading the source material: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s