ve he must have for his country. He wouldfight until the end, for his emperor and his country. The scarything about this is the majority of the Japanese military thoughtthis way. The fact that the enemy is ready to die so long as youdie with him is not something a soldier wants to think aboutbefore going into battle. Once more I must bring into the picture the fact that a longer war means more deaths, and it appears that a longer war is exactly what Japan had in mind.Most opponents of the bomb say the it was immoral todrop the bomb on such targets as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, butyou cannot deny the fact the major manufacturing of wartimeproducts was being conducted here. Now, I'm going to be honest, I don't believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best places to bomb, due to the high civilian numbers; however, it is still my belief that the Atomic Bomb was necessary to end the war. Also, leaflets and warnings had been issued to the people of those cities warning them of an attack. Some say that the UnitedStates should have warned what kind of attack it would havebeen. This however seems ridiculous to me. It shouldn't matterwhat kind of warning is given, a threat under such conditionsshould be taken seriously, and the citizens should have evacuated. One might also point out the fact, however brutal this may seem, that ever since Sherman's March to the Sea of the American Civil War, which was a turning point in modern warfare, civilian population centers are also considered fair game to the military. The moral issue of dropping an atomic bomb is verycontroversial. Especially since radiation is a major side effect of such a weapon. On the other hand though, fire-bombings of other Japanese cities had left other civilians equally scarred. If one wanted to argue the issue of radiation as a side effect of atomic bombing, they would have to find a way to argue the side effects of bombing altogether. Is it immoral to use a bomb? No...
