Surname 1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Details
Date
Japanese Bombing
Apparently, the atomic bombing was among many ways to end World War II. Among the
alternatives, Japanese blockade and invasion were the two other ways. In the first case, a siege
could have ensued subjugation and starving of the Japanese to force them to surrender. With the
invasion option, the Japanese thought to save face under it as a means of committing national
suicide. Reason being, the Imperial Army wasn’t ready to surrender, and the leaders were too
egocentric to accept defeat (Halliday).
With that in mind, it is evident that options were available. But why were they
reasonable? Firstly, they could have resulted in more deaths than the 200,000 from the atomic
bombing. In particular, over one million lives could have been lost both from the Allied team and
the Japanese side although Japanese loss could have been more significant (Chambers). As a
result, it was justified to use the atomic bomb as a means to prevent prolonged war and
alternative tactics whose impact could have been more impacting than bombing. Either way,
there was no way to avoid the loss of lives. As such, what mattered is bringing the war to an
immediate end hence the practicability of the atomic bombing (Halliday). By the way, is there
any need of a lengthy battle if the consequences are the same as the ones of an instant solution?
