On the morning of August 6, 1945, humanity crossed a terrifying threshold as the United States dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This historic decision was far from arbitrary — it was the result of calculated military, political, and psychological considerations, as detailed by French writer Vincent Jauvert in a report for Le Nouvel Observateur.
Despite internal debates among American scientists and military officials — some advocating for a non-lethal demonstration or a prior warning — the White House moved forward with its plan. The reasoning was stark: “The psychological shock must be as extreme as possible.”
Scientists Tried to Prevent the Strike
According to Jauvert, several scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project urged President Harry Truman to reconsider using the atomic bomb on Japan. Some proposed a test detonation on an uninhabited island, with United Nations representatives present, as a show of force that would avoid civilian casualties.
Even Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist who led the development of the bomb, suggested immediate internationalization of the technology, proposing that the U.S. share its nuclear knowledge with allies, including a newly liberated France. Meanwhile, U.S. Navy Secretary Ralph Bard recommended issuing a clear warning to Japan, arguing that America should uphold its image as a “great humanitarian nation.”
The White House Turned a Deaf Ear
These proposals were ultimately ignored. At dawn on August 6, 1945, the U.S. military dropped the “Little Boy” atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The attack killed more than 100,000 people and marked the dawn of the nuclear age. It was a pivotal moment that contributed directly to the end of World War II.
Why Hiroshima?
Jauvert raises a critical question: Why Hiroshima — and not Tokyo or Kyoto? Declassified American and Japanese archives now shed light on the true motivations behind this world-altering decision.
Discussions about potential targets in Japan began as early as May 1943 — long before the U.S. had even produced the fissile material necessary for a functional atomic bomb. Cities like Tokyo, Niigata, and Kyoto were initially considered.
Kyoto, despite its cultural and historical significance, was removed from the list after Secretary of War Henry Stimson insisted on preserving what he called a “cultural jewel.” Tokyo, on the other hand, was ruled out due to shallow water conditions, which posed a risk of bomb retrieval in case of malfunction.
Yokohama was considered, but its heavy anti-aircraft defenses made it an unfavorable target. Even the idea of bombing the Emperor’s Palace was rejected, not for moral reasons, but because of its “lack of strategic value.”
Hiroshima: The Chosen Target
Eventually, Hiroshima emerged as the chosen target. It was a mid-sized city, yet it held great military and industrial significance. According to American assessments at the time, it was a major military depot and industrial port. Its geography — surrounded by hills — was also believed to enhance the bomb’s destructive force through blast concentration.
Three days after Hiroshima, and with Japan still reluctant to surrender, Truman authorized the second bomb to be dropped on Nagasaki. A third bomb, intended for Tokyo, was in preparation — but Japan capitulated six days later, on August 15, 1945, bringing World War II to a definitive close.
Why Japan, Not Germany?
Another important question: Why was Japan targeted with atomic weapons, while Germany never was? For Truman and his advisors, Japan was seen as the final adversary — and the atomic bomb was viewed as a way to avoid a bloody ground invasion planned for November 1945.
Strategic pressure was high. The Soviet Union was rising as a post-war rival, and Washington was eager to secure influence in the region before Moscow’s full involvement. According to a top-secret memo cited by Jauvert, the Japanese were considered “ideal targets” because — unlike the Germans — they were deemed less capable of reverse-engineering nuclear technology if they recovered an unexploded bomb.
The Ethical Debate That Endures
Since that day, a fierce debate has raged: Was the atomic bombing truly necessary? Intelligence gathered through surveillance of imperial meetings suggested that Japan was not yet ready to surrender, even in the face of catastrophic losses. From the American perspective, the bomb would force a swift end to the war.
But at what cost? This remains the haunting question — one that resurfaces with intensity every year on the anniversary of Hiroshima, now 80 years later.
