Final answer:
The use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is heavily debated regarding its necessity and morality. Proponents see it as a needed step to end World War II swiftly and save lives, while critics argue about the ethical implications and civilian casualties. Ultimately, the bombings led to Japan's unconditional surrender, marking the war's conclusion.
Step-by-step explanation:
The decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II remains one of the most debated issues in military history. Proponents argue that it was a necessary act to bring about a swift end to the war and save lives that would have been lost in a protracted invasion of Japan. Critics, however, view the bombings as unnecessary and morally questionable given the scale of destruction and civilian casualties.
The use of the atomic bomb was seen as a continuation of the total war strategy of targeting civilian areas to demoralize the enemy, a tactic used in firebombings such as those in Dresden and Tokyo. Still, the atomic bombings were distinctive in the immediate and long-term devastation they caused. President Truman believed that dropping the atomic bombs would end the war quickly and justify the enormous expense of the Manhattan Project. Despite division among his advisors, the actual destruction of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and Nagasaki on August 9, prompted Japan's unconditional surrender, officially ending World War II.