Military, legal and ethical controversies related to the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 on 6th and 9th August have been one of the biggest concerns of the debate over these atomic bombings. The Postdam Declaration was issued by Chiang Kai-shek – the Chinese Nationalist government’s Chairman, Winston Churchill – the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and Harry S. Truman – the President of the United States in 1945 on 26th July. The terms related to surrender by the Empire of Japan as decided were outlined in this declaration. The process of decision-making of the presidentship whether or not the key cause of Japanese surrender was the bombings was focused by some debaters. Further, before 9th August, an hour before Japan was into was with the Soviet Union.
With the completion of new studies and the availability of new evidence, support has been lost and gained by various arguments over time. The role of the bombings in the surrender of Japan and the justification of the United States-based upon the surrender precipitated by the bombings have been focused continuously and primarily. This remains the key subject of both popular and scholarly debate. However, scholars have been divided by this fundamental issue over a period of nearly 4 decades whether the bomb usage was mandatory to accomplish victory in the War in the Pacific.
It has been asserted generally by the bombings’ supporters that surrender of Japanese was the key cause of it to prevent massive casualties. It was assumed that surrender may not be done by Japan, less there had to be an overwhelming demonstration of destructive capability. However, it was argued that it was unnecessary military by those who opposed the bombings referring it to a type of state terrorism or a war crime.