The dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, August 1945.
Many people then and since have criticised the use of such a drastic measure which killed thousands of non-combatant men, women & children. The destruction was on an unparalleled scale and the first, and still only, time in history that nuclear weapons have been used in war. Many would argue that the killing of so many civilians was unjustified, even barbaric, that the war was effectively won and it was just a matter of time before the Japanese surrendered. Was the US guilty of overkill (compare the criticism that allied 1,000 bomber raids on German cities had caused needless loss of civilian lives)?
That it was a drastic and awful act cannot be denied. However, there is a moral case which can be made out in favour of President Truman. First, the Japanese were fully prepared to fight to the last man and US casualties were very high. Capturing Japanese-occupied Pacific islands, as in the bloody battles of Okinawa & Iwo Jima, was very costly in terms of US casualties. In addition, the Japanese were prepared to use desperate, suicidal tactics to defend their homeland, e.g. the kamikaze (divine wind) air attacks on US naval vessels. Second, a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland would have resulted in enormous casualties on both sides. Nobody can say how many US servicemen would have been killed but conservative estimates suggest at least half a million. The US president would have argued that his first duty was to minimise US casualties. Whatever the total would have been, the deaths, on both sides, would surely have been well in excess if 1 million. So it could be argued that, by ending the war quickly, Truman saved countless lives. It is worth remembering that even after Nagasaki, the Japanese refused to formally surrender for fully 6 days.
