.

With the release of Oppenheimer, the debate, one that will never be resolved, over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have once again become more active.

Pondering these issues for an uncounted time it struck me that these bombings and the decision to proceed with them are a real-world example of the famous philosophical ‘the Trolley Problem.’

The Trolley Problem posits an out-of-control streetcar hurtling down a track. The car cannot be stopped and without any action taken will strike and kill five pedestrians. However, if a switch is thrown it will go onto a different track where it will kill ‘only’ one person. The unresolvable question is which is more ethical to do nothing and allow five to die or to take an action with intent that will kill one?

World War II in the Pacific is the out-of-control trolley. It will kill people until it is ended. The course of the war prior to August 1945 supports the assumption that an invasion of the home island will result in massive loss of life for both the invading allied armies and the Japanese population. One can argue that a demonstrate display of the atomic bomb might have prompted an unconditional surrender, but a counter-factual cannot be proven and even after two cities had been struck with the terrible weapons the militarist faction wanted to continue the war. One can also argue that the requirement that the surrender be unconditional could have been dropped to end the war, however the United States was not the sole combatant allied against the Empire and it is doubtful that the Chinese would have settled for a conditional surrender. These other histories remain counter-factual.

On the other side it can be argued that the Invasion of the home islands may not have caused such horrific casualties as the level of starvation already striking the populace would have prompted a total collapse. Again, a counter-factual cannot be proved and the actions shown earlier in the war displayed an almost unimaginable resolve by both the armed forces of Japan and its people.

The conclusions debating if the bombings were justified, if they were an evil, if they saved more lives than they cost, all depend on the counter-factuals accepted as given and the ones rejected as unsupported rendering the debate not only unresolved but unresolvable. Not matter where you stand on the issue just be aware that you stand on counter-factual interpretations of the war, and no one has a lock on the ‘truth’ of what would have happened had events proceeded differently.