Atomic bombing was key factor in turn of events

There has been a robust discussion in Voices about the atomic bombing of Japan. It is necessary, however, to address some writers’ claims.

I am appalled by a suggestion that the United States was compelled to test the bomb on humans owing to the high price of developing it (“Truth of bombing will never be revealed”; May 28).

This accusation puts the US wartime administration on a par with the German Nazis and Japanese militarists in cruelty, which is out of all proportion. The bomb had been tested already, and the US would have known its lethal impact.

Another writer presented the matter in racial terms (“History shows a contrite US after it bombed Japan”; May 25, online).

The Japanese invasion was never about liberating Asians from their Western colonial masters. Japan’s objective was the same as that of the Western powers: To exploit these territories’ resources, except that the Japanese were more atrocious.

The writer suggested that the US would never have used the A-bomb on the Germans, but there was no need to consider this.

Near the end of the war, the German army was already crumbling en masse to the Western allies, which was preferred to the sure-death scenario of fighting the Soviets. The situation in the Pacific theatre was different.

The US had employed limited resources to recover some islands, and even near the end of the Pacific War, the Japanese army in East Asia and Southeast Asia was largely intact and still formidable.

Balancing all historical evidence, the atomic bombing was a key factor in the turn of events.

The Pacific War had dragged on because Japan was adamant in refusing an unconditional surrender and not because the US prolonged the war to use the bomb as claimed in “Atomic bombs unnecessary as Japan had plans to surrender” (May 18).

Unconditional surrender was important. Japan had sought to retain its government and some conquered territories such as Taiwan and Korea, which was unacceptable to the Allies; it would have meant that Japan would not be punished for its war crimes.

Also, the US did not agree to safeguard the emperorship at the point of surrender as claimed in “Three reasons why Japan ended the war” (May 25). This decision was only made later.

Even if the atomic bomb was not used with the intention of saving lives, I think it indeed saved lives.

If the US had invaded the Japanese mainland, the Japanese army garrisoned elsewhere could have taken their anger out on the locals, and some of us would not exist today to engage in this discussion.