True, the winners of a war end up making the rules. And it serves to constrain the victors from doing such things that would result in being considered war criminals for whatever actions, but definitely for the mass criticism that would come with the use of a modern thermonuclear weapon by a nation-state.
Truman wasn't a man to be envied. He certainly must have agonized over this decision. He was big into government responsibility to the people. Perhaps he was overly committed in his desire to protect American lives. It is hard to justify killing millions of civilians in what is termed "collatoral damage". Yet with a small island like Japan where overpopulation is the norm, industry is going to intermixed with residential areas. It wasn't purely targets for killing innocents but stopping a war machine. Let's face it, a naval invasion into their main isle would take such a commitment of resources (and effort) that we could literally have been at war with them for a decade or more. To spotlight an article...
SOURCE -
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-po...-WWII-4bomb.htmEconomics of the situation should not be only justification. It surely wasn't. When the people were as supportive of their social structure (read "government system"), you have to realize that the loyalty to their administration would have insured that they continued to support the war effort in full. While it would probably be safe to say that the United States would surely have won a war of attrition, we can only base that on our naval capability. With the Japanese trying to possibly acquire jet engine design and other technological edges, it could certainly have translated into great material costs. This would be ESPECIALLY true upon an attempt to attack their island strongholds and homeland. Yet let us consider that a great number of lives were also lost to either conventional explosives or fire bombing missions that were more strategic than tactical. Pointing at just the nuclear devices is certainly nearsighted in claiming a responsibility to humankind.
Germany's war was one of aggressive expansion. Japan's was little different and when considered upon the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor; one could read into that their attempt to totally subjugate their enemies, even annihilate. Their conquest of outlaying islands and Indochina only served to verify that they were not consolidating strong military positions. In the light of the mere numbers of infantry placed at various locations, it was a plan of theatre conquest... if not conquest of the entire regions with coastal lands along the Pacific Ocean. China was a majour victim in WWII. Russia had been a prior target of opportunity earlier in the century. There is emphasis on their breaking a neutrality pact which had Japan consider a prior long term foe was about to enter the war as an enemy fighting on a completely different front and much closer to home.
Hiroshima's population was considered to have been around 255,000 registered citizens - with 80,000 of those killed outright during the blast of "Little Boy" (
See http://www.japan-101.com/history/hiroshima...omb_history.htm) Firebombing Tokyo could have easily claimed twice as many lives yet the numbers are obscure. That doesn't count the iron bombs that were dropped while aiming at industry and "missing" their intended targets. (Info at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_To...in_World_War_II )
This essay isn't to justify the use of atomic weapons. Yet one merely pointing a finger at their usage is holding one nation accountable of using one type of act while allowing other types which were equally atrocious. The Japanese had a code of honour they would often observe in treatment of prisoners or indigenous population. Yet their cruelties could qualify as being considered barbaric when they were trying to send a clear message. We could say that Truman had a new, awesome weapon and merely chose Japan as the target for testing these nuclear devices. Speculation could say that Truman chose the harshest action possible to communicate his message that the U.S. was fully committed to an end to war. Many had hoped it was the war to end all wars... yet we see that is folly. Both sides were guilty of acts and it is certain that being the victor means escaping the harsher punishment. In light of all things considered, the United States could be commended for not seeking to push for a country's ruin by harsh terms of surrender. By far, the Japanese have been fortunate to get past the tragedies and focus on rebuilding their national economy and infrastructure. The U.S. was a part of that process.
The world had learned responsibility during the nuclear age. We have gotten past it with the fall of the Soviet Union and reduced being able to obliterate all life on the planet 100 times over to just 2, 3 or 4 times. Yet claiming any nuclear weapon's development in a third world country for defensive purposes without a delivery system. Yet in times of war, there are no clear cut definitions of right and wrong, though we claim existing conventions are there to help insure that there is some conscious thought to what happens after questionable acts.
It is hard for me to really say we were right and they were wrong. It isn't that clear cut to me. Yet it is history... in the past and hopefully something we have learned from since then.