To this day, the ethical debate over the attacks on Hiroshima—the focus of Countdown 1945—and Nagasaki remains unresolved. There are two ethical questions that come into play when assessing the use of the atom bomb to end the war. The first concern is theoretical: whether the use of nuclear weapons is ever justified regardless of the context. While the use of the atom bomb in the context of war is a thorny issue, the question is not one of the use of nuclear energy in and of itself. An example is the hypothetical implementation of a nuclear warhead to destroy an asteroid headed straight towards earth—there would seem to be no ethical problem with using such a weapon to protect earth from imminent destruction.

The second concern is the more practical one: whether the use of nuclear weapons within the context of war can ever be justified, specifically in attacking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some argue that the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of non-combatants is unacceptable, even if it ends a war. Admiral Leahy expressed this view in comparing the actions of the American military to something out of “the Dark Ages” (254). Others argue that the carnage unleashed against the Japanese cities was simply the price necessary to end the war, ultimately saving more lives than would be lost in invading Japan.