The Atomic Bomb's Justification

Throughout history, advancements in war technology have caused increasingly larger amounts of casualties.  For example, bows and arrows could kill one person at a time, while cannons could decimate a whole battalion. The victims of war usually are the members of the military.  It is morally frowned upon to attack civilians, and there are even rules regulating how soldiers are supposed to treat non-combatants. 

Therefore, the question needs to be asked, is the attack of civilians ever justifiable?

Towards the end of WWII, the United States and Japan clashed and more than 100,000 died fighting throughout the Pacific Islands.  During the same time, a new weapon was developed in America called the atomic bomb.  In a show of power, America dropped not one but two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.  These bombs were not aimed at army bases, but at civilian populated areas. The fatalities from these attacks reached more than 250,000. An argument could be made that war is never humane, but in this case, America took war to a whole new (inhumane) level.  Not only did the American forces kill the opposing military, but they aimed their most powerful weapons at Japan's innocent civilians. 

       Many historians argue that this decision was necessary. In other words, the ends justified the means.  In order to end a miserable war, America had to make a point that they were too powerful to fight against. This message was successfully sent, because soon after the bombs were dropped, Japan surrendered the war and America was victorious.

The question of whether this attack was justified must also be looked at through the perspectives of the people involved.  To the family of an America soldier during WWII, this decision was extremely fortunate and necessary.  Their child would have a higher chance of being killed in the war if the bomb had not been dropped.  However, to the member of an innocent Japanese person killed by this bomb, the decision was unnecessary and showed inhumanity.

As a "historian" looking to the past attempting to analyze this without bias, I would argue that the decision to drop the bomb was the right choice, but the bomb didn't need to be dropped where it would kill innocent civilians.  I agree that if America hadn't dropped an atomic bomb, the war would have gone on for many years to come. However, did America really need to involve thousands of civilian casualties to prove their point?  In my opinion, America could have dropped a bomb on an area more concentrated on military personnel to show the same amount of power, while maintaining a certain amount of humanity. When war reaches the point where civilians are being attacked, then it is inhumane to go on.