'Oppenheimer' reignites debate: Was the U.S. justified in dropping atomic bombs on Japan?

“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.

What’s happening

The new blockbuster film "Oppenheimer," which tells the story of how physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer became “the father of the atomic bomb,” has given new energy to a debate that has raged for nearly 80 years: Whether the U.S. made the right decision to drop nuclear weapons on Japan at the end of World War II.

An overwhelming majority of Americans at the time approved of the bombings, which killed as many as 200,000 Japanese citizens in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that sentiment has shifted over the decades. By 2015, the U.S. public was close to evenly split on whether the use of nuclear weapons was justified.

Oppenheimer himself was deeply conflicted about the weapons he helped create. He reportedly celebrated the news of the Hiroshima bombing, stating that his only regret was they hadn’t developed the bomb in time to use against the Nazis earlier in the war. But a few months later, he told then-President Harry Truman, “I feel I have blood on my hands.” In the years following the war, he was a vocal advocate for strict nuclear arms control and opposed the creation of even more powerful versions of the bomb.

Why there’s debate

Because of the extraordinary stakes of the decision — and the unknowable outcomes of not making it — the debate over dropping the bombs has been described by one historian as “the most controversial issue in American history.”

In 1945, the main argument in support of the bombings, which many affirm to this day, was that the use of nuclear weapons actually saved countless lives and that the alternatives would have been even more devastating. Proponents of this view say the only other way to convince Japan to surrender would have been a brutal invasion that would have caused massive losses on both sides and created a famine that could have led to starvation for millions of Japanese civilians.

Others say it’s likely there would have been other nuclear attacks had the world not been given a clear example of their incredible power.

But critics of the bombings say these justifications ignore what was really happening at the time. They argue that American leaders dropped the bombs because they wanted to do maximum damage to the Japanese people, not some sober calculus in search of the least-harmful way to end the war. Many also scoff at the idea that the attacks somehow served as a deterrent, since the world’s arsenal of nuclear weapons grew exponentially in the years that followed.

Perspectives

Americans are hiding behind a myth to justify doing the unforgivable

“Like many Americans, I was taught growing up that my grandfather was spared the burden of invading Japan and very likely dying because Harry Truman dropped a pair of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ended the war. The main function of such stories is to justify a terrible war crime.” — David Klion, The New Republic

The bombings ultimately spared countless lives

“The alternative to dropping the bombs was a full-scale land invasion of the islands. Conventional attacks, including regular bombing, would have resulted in widespread civilian casualties as well as the long-term destruction of Japanese infrastructure.” — Tiana Lowe Doescher, Washington Examiner

Japan may have surrendered regardless

“The bomb’s central role in the Japanese surrender has been hotly contested by many historians, complicating any claims it was a necessary act.” — Greg Mitchell, Los Angeles Times

Japan was nowhere near surrendering before the bombs were dropped

“The big [myth] was that the Japanese were ready to surrender and would have surrendered even if we had not dropped those bombs. I think that is a myth. … The Japanese were essentially defeated—that’s true. Their fleet had been sunk and their cities had been burned. But they were not ready to surrender.” — Evan Thomas, nuclear historian, to Time

The typical story gives U.S. leaders far too much credit

“The standard narrative that most people have about the use of the atomic bombs and World War II is wrong. … Just the idea that Harry Truman very carefully weighed whether to use the bomb or not. It was a question of, ‘Do you bomb? Or do you invade?’ And so with a heavy heart, he chose to bomb and that was the lesser of two evils. That is just 100 percent not what happened at the time.” — Alex Wellerstein, nuclear historian, to Vox

The most humane thing the U.S. could have done was end the war as quickly as possible

“We were fighting a merciless foe in a savage war where every day brought more suffering and devastation, to combatants and civilians alike and across Asia. The best thing that could happen was ending the war as soon as possible, and the atom bomb brought it to a swift and decisive conclusion.” — Rich Lowry, National Review

The bombings convinced the world that nuclear weapons should not be used again

“It was inevitable that such a destructive and horrific weapon would be developed. And the specter of that weapon is breathtaking and terrifying. But the sheer scale of the bomb often overshadows a much more optimistic fact of the story: Since 1945, mankind has had the choice to use the weapon and thus far have chosen not to.” — Hal Sundt, The Ringer

Using the bombs accelerated the nuclear arms race

“This is a pervasive myth, one that primarily benefits the companies that build nuclear weapons. It’s the myth that military power prevents conflict. … The real realists recognize that by perpetuating this system of valuing nuclear weapons, we are going to ensure that they’re used.” — Seth Shelden, United Nations liaison for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, to Slate