The ethical legitimacy of actions taken during both World Wars is a highly debated topic even to this day. Amongst scholars which find that the bombings were necessary, there are three main evidences utilized to support their argument: is that it will end the war, saving American lives, and show off the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. However, in terms of those opposing the bombings of the two cities, their main evidences include: japan was already defeated, both cites were filled with civilians, and it was not the main reasoning for japan surrender, leading to the question: was the usage of the atomic bombs on August 6th and August 9th towards the end of World War Two, both respectively named Little Boy and Fat Man, on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?.
August 15, 1945 japan announced its surrender just after 6 days of the two atomic bombs that have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this shock attack forced the Japanese to surrender and it even made Emperor Hirohito himself shocked of the divesting power of the atomic bomb, it got him to a point were he is pushing for peace instead of counting to fight, he even said "Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."-Emperor Hirohito. Therefore it shows how effective the atomic bomb was on the minds of the Japanese to surrender and end the war. If not for the atomic bomb, Operation Downfall who'd go in motion, this operation was plan for the invasion of Japan, since the Japanese are well known for their brutal fighting and the unwilling of surrender the casualties for the invasion who'd be far greater than the atomic bomb for both sides, General Marshall himself " suggested that Allied losses could easily reach 500,00; after the war, Omar Bradly said as high as one million-more man than earmarked for the invasion in the first place" J.
