In August 6 of 1945, President Truman made a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan’s mainland in hopes to bring Japan to surrender, as previously they were fiercely unwilling. President Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ethical because there was no other way to win the war except with force, and because it would result in significantly less casualties than invading Japan. One reason that it was ethical for the U.S. to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was that military force was required to win the war. President Truman was discussing with his committee that studied the significance nuclear weapons would have for the United States. The Japanese were in no mood to surrender, but instead fought back fiercely, even if it should cost them their own lives. In a quote from President Truman’s advisory committee in the book Memoirs of Harry S. Truman published in 1955 states, “We propose no technical demonstrations likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.” President Truman’s advisory committee stated that a show of force via bombing an island with the newly designed nuclear weapons would likely not bring an end to the war. In an 2001 Interview with Soldier William “Wild Bill” Guarnere from Stephen Ambrose, the William says, “ ‘The U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, the Japanese surrendered, and the war was over.” According to William, the bombing of Japan resulted in the surrender of the Japanese, which was the ultimate goal of President Truman. According to this evidence, military force was necessary to win the war and in the form of bombs, and the bombs fulfilled their purpose; to force Japan to surrender and the Allied Forces winning the war. Another reason that it was ethical for the U.S. to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was because lots of casualties were avoided. The battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima resulted in many casualties of war. In the article, 76 Years Later, Debate Persists Over Hiroshima, Nagasaki Atomic Bombings, published by Carlin Becker on August 9, 2021 in newsweek.com, the war department made new estimates of potential casualties in the event of Operation Downfall being complete. “The invasion would have resulted in 1.7 to 4 million U.S. casualties, including 400,000–800,000 dead, and 5–10 million Japanese dead, according to military leaders at the time.” According to The Japan Peace Museum, photos by Shogo Yamahata, a photograph of The Day After the Nagasaki Bombing showed a total combined casualties number of about 199,000. Compared the estimates of the casualties of Operation Downfall, the bombing doesn’t even begin to approach the number of deaths from an potential invasion. In the same interview with Soldier William, “Wild Bill '' Guarnere from Stephen Ambrose, William says, “‘Me and all my buddies jumping in Tokyo, and the allied forces going in, and all of us getting killed? Millions more allied forces getting killed?’” According to this evidence, much more signficant war casualties on the side of the United States and Japanese could have been avoided by simply bombing Japan instead of invading their homeland. In conclusion, President Hoover’s decision to drop the bomb was ethical because it resulted the victory of the United States and overall ended in less casualties than invasion of Japan. President Hoover was forced to enact military force to stop Japan. The two methods of fighting Japan were invading and bombing Japan, but clearly invading Japan presents a much larger number of casualties than of bombing Japan. All human life is equal in value, be it a soldier or a civilian; therefore bombing Japan was clearly the ethical choice.