Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... - Air Force General Curtis LeMay, commander of the air war against Japan

The past week has seen the 60th anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As usual, the passing of this yearly event is marked in the mainstream press with articles and news stories about how the bombings ended the war and thus "saved thousands of lives." This acceptance of the atomic bombings as necessary and just is the frame with which these events are placed both in American media and history texts. The most common justification offered is that invading mainland Japan would have cost a million American soldiers as the Japanese were prepared to "fight to the death." This scenario of massive American casualties were based on taking casualty percentages from earlier engagements such as Okinawa and projecting that over the whole of Japan. This methodology failed to take into account the fact that Japan, by summer of 1945, was out of all manner of material supplies, and was on the verge of general starvation. While the Japanese soldiers were known for exhibiting very high morale and a refusal to surrender, it seems unlikely that the Japanese military would be able to sustain a defense of the entire country with the same ferocity as they did on much smaller islands in the Pacific.

This view of Japan as a spent military force is backed up by classified memos that show that the Japanese government was making serious gestures toward surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped. Ironically, the one condition that the Japanese tried to obtain was that the Emperor would remain in power, a condition the US initially rejected. Some historians have suggested that the US decision to use the atomic bombs was due, not so much to military necessity, but rather as a way to intimidate the USSR, which declared war on Japan a few days prior to the actual surrender. While many interpretations and analysis of the issues surrounding the atomic bombings have been made, the original documents are available at The National Security Archive website for people who are interested in making up their own mind on this topic.

Regardless of the argument over whether the atomic bombing was justified or not, the bombing signified a technical leap but not a change in strategy or doctrine. It should be remembered that the US military was targeting and destroying cities in Germany and Japan with conventional bombers prior to the development of the atomic bomb. The fire raids on Tokyo, while requiring far more bombers, actually killed more civilians than the initial casualties from the Nagasaki bombing. Over the course of the war, far more Japanese civilians died from conventional weapons and the disease and hunger caused by a conventional blockade. This should be kept in mind, for while people remain concerned (and justifiably so) about nuclear weapons and other "weapons of mass destruction", the enormous destructive potential of so-called "conventional weapons" should not be understated or forgotten.

Articles about Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

• Nagasaki Day by Raul Mahajan
• From Hiroshima to Humanity by David Krieger
• From Hiroshima to Iraq and Back by Sharon K. Weiner and Robert Jensen
• Hiroshima Memories: The Struggle Against Forgetting by Renato Redentor Constantino
• Expressing the Horror of Hiroshima in 17 Syllables by David McNeill
• Sixty Years After the Bombs by Lawrence S. Wittner
• A New Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Frand Brodhead
• Democracy Now! August 5, 2005 (entire episode devoted to Hiroshima and Nagasaki)