
This month marks the 80th anniversary of the use of nuclear weapons to end World War II. Two atomic bombs destroyed two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, sending shockwaves all the way to Emperor Hirohito's bunker in Tokyo, where he told his military staff he would no longer sacrifice his country and its civilians in a war that was destroying his nation.
The debate continues to this day as to the morality of using nuclear weapons, with critics citing the enormous human cost. What they consistently fail to tally is the cost of not using atomic bombs to end the conflict.
Consider that more people were killed by the B-29 firebombing raid on Tokyo in March 1945 than by the nuclear strike on Nagasaki. No reference is made by critics to the naval blockade of Japan that reduced the daily calorie intake for civilians to starvation levels. Nor is there reference to the devastating attacks on America's naval fleet by kamikaze suicide pilots, or the horrific loss of life among Marines to take just one hill on Iwo Jima.
The alternative to using atomic bombs was Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of Japan's home islands. Military estimates projected catastrophic casualties: potentially one million American deaths and several million Japanese casualties, including civilians who were being instructed to fight the American invasion with sharpened bamboo sticks.
The invasion would have made the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a minor footnote to a countrywide bloodbath.
The atomic bombs shocked the Japanese Imperial House into the unthinkable.
Hirohito's surrender announcement specifically cited "a new and most cruel bomb" as a factor in Japan's capitulation. In a radio broadcast just hours after a failed military coup that sought to prevent him from announcing Japan's surrender, Hirohito told stunned listeners that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest... we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers." In other words, we surrender.
Revisionist critics can argue that Japan was already defeated and would have surrendered without the atomic bombs, but the facts of history reveal otherwise. After the surrender, captured documents revealed that the Japanese had a very good idea where the American invasion would come and were prepared to expend lives to bloody those beaches. And that would be just the beginning.
There is no question that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan caused considerable suffering, but President Harry Truman knew he had the ultimate weapon to end World War II, and with it, prevent the deaths of more Americans – and many more Japanese. As we look back, on the 80th anniversary of this final chapter of World War II, history's judgment must weigh not only what happened, but what was prevented.
Lawrence Kadish serves on the Board of Governors of Gatestone Institute.