"240,000 Deaths Including Joseon People... Was Japan's Atomic Bombing the Best Option? 80 Years of Ongoing Debate"

Approximately 240,000 Deaths from Atomic Bombs on the Japanese Archipelago
Mainstream Academic Opinion Overwhelmingly Says "It Was Necessary"
"The Landing Operation Would Have Caused More Damage Than the Atomic Bomb"
However, There Are Also Objections Regarding the Second Nagasaki Atomic Bomb

August 15th is Liberation Day, marking the Korean Peninsula's liberation from Japanese colonial rule. Just nine days earlier, on August 6, 1945, the Japanese archipelago was engulfed in flames by the American atomic bomb 'Little Boy.'

The two atomic bombs caused approximately 160,000 and 80,000 deaths respectively, with about 30,000 of the victims estimated to be Koreans. The atomic bomb represents a historic turning point as it marked Korea's liberation and the end of World War II, yet it remains an event that continuously raises the question, "Was it really necessary to resolve it this way?"

Mushroom cloud rising over Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945. [Image source: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum]

The Hiroshima Atomic Bomb That Killed 160,000: Mainstream Opinion Says "It Was a Necessary Decision"

The 'atomic bomb debate' has been ongoing for 78 years. Especially in the United States, which carried out the atomic bomb operation against Japan under President Harry Truman, substantial research materials have been accumulated regarding this decision.

Regarding 'Little Boy,' the world's first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, both academia and the public largely agree that it was "necessary." The basis for this is that the total number of casualties from Japanese and Allied forces that would have occurred without the atomic bomb would have far exceeded the atomic bomb casualties.

In 1945, the United States believed that Japan would not surrender. Furthermore, the Japanese military command, the 'Imperial General Headquarters,' had already begun preparations for a 'homeland decisive battle.' This operation aimed to conscript not only soldiers but also civilians to defend against the Allied forces landing on the Japanese archipelago. Therefore, if the Allied forces had to land in Japan without the atomic bomb, they would have had to carry out high-explosive bombings on civilian areas equivalent to the atomic bomb damage.

Atomic Bomb
Photo by Asia Economy DB

Since this bombing would have been carried out slowly and extensively along with a comprehensive naval blockade of Japan, the suffering of Japanese civilians would have been even greater. The number of Allied forces, including American and British troops, expected to be killed during the operation was also estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Instead, the atomic bomb demonstrated America's resolve directly before the Imperial General Headquarters and was effective in breaking the Japanese leadership's will to continue fighting. As a result, it succeeded in hastening the end of the war through overwhelming force and saving more lives.

Was the Second Atomic Bomb Justified? Some Voices of Criticism

The issue lies with the second atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima. The Nagasaki bombing was carried out because the Imperial General Headquarters did not show a clear intention even after Hiroshima.

The debate over why the Imperial General Headquarters did not make a swift decision after Hiroshima and why the United States did not wait longer before dropping the second bomb is still ongoing.

Some American revisionist scholars criticize the second atomic bomb as an excessively brutal decision. This argument was detailed in the book 'Designers of the End of the War (2019)' by Japanese-American historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.

Hasegawa argues that Japan's unconditional surrender was due not to the 'atomic bomb' but to the 'Soviet intervention.' In fact, on August 9, 1945, the day the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, the Soviet Union suddenly invaded Japanese-held Manchuria and advanced southward.

'Soviet neutrality' was the main reason the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters was prepared to fight to the death against the Allied forces. However, when the Soviet Union joined the United States and Britain in tightening the encirclement around Japan, the Imperial General Headquarters had no choice but to face reality, which ultimately led to unconditional surrender.

Based on this argument, Hasegawa criticizes the U.S. decision to drop the atomic bomb immediately without assessing the impact the Soviet invasion would have on the Japanese leadership.

The Atomic Bomb That Changed the World Entirely

A building reduced to rubble after the atomic bombing. [Image source=U.S. National Archives]

Discussions continue about the true intentions behind the Nagasaki bombing and the real background that led the Japanese leadership to unconditional surrender, but there is no disagreement that the atomic bomb completely transformed the world thereafter.

The world was divided into Eastern and Western blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union, engaging in the 'Cold War.' Major powers capable of projecting nuclear weapons worldwide emerged, and the strategy of mutually assured destruction was born. Although direct conflict between the two superpowers never occurred, the arms race intensified significantly, and smaller countries were often caught up in proxy wars between the powers.

Nuclear weapons continue to have a profound impact on international politics and military strategy in the 21st century. For example, in 2022, Russia, which invaded Ukraine, displayed tactical nuclear weapons to neighboring countries to deter early intervention by other forces.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.