learntoquestion ltq discussions

This reflection is part of the Dinner Table Discussion and all three parts-Part I (prep), Part II (discussion) and Part III (Learn to Question Reflection) will all be factored into a grade that will count as a test grade.

Questions to Consider:

Under which circumstances, if any, is it necessary and permissible to use overwhelming force in war, even if it means the intentional harm of non-combatants? Do some nations or groups need to be humbled decisively in order to stop hostilities and ultimately save lives?

Please note that you can focus your response on the use of the atomic bomb specifically, the philosophical and ethical considerations more broadly, modern day global conflicts or any combination of these. Just make sure that post answers the questions posed in some way.

Word Count Requirement: 300-500 words

Sources to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a description, quote or paraphrasing, from the sources

Rubric to Review: LTQ Rubric

I believe that it is necessary and permissible to use overwhelming force when you are in a war with a place that is likely not to surrender. Although many members of the American military say that they believe Japan would have surrendered, I think that more people were saved than harmed with the atomic bomb in Japan as it was a nation that was hard to reason with. The use of the atomic bomb should only be to prevent total war. Overall, Japan and the United States were major powers in the world at the time and had many allies. If the war had not been ended so abruptly with the bomb, I believe that other powers may have ended up in the conflict which would have caused more harm than good. I think Evan Thomas, of NPR, did an excellent job explaining how the other options would have been worse in his article, “The atomic bombs not only saved many thousands and possibly millions of Japanese lives, but they also saved the lives of even more Asians beyond Japan. Under the unforgiving rule of the Imperial Japanese Army, Chinese, Southeast Asians, and Indonesians were dying at the rate of perhaps as many as 250,000 a month. Had the war dragged on, it is horrific to imagine the dystopia that would have engulfed vast areas from Manchuria to Borneo. At admittedly terrible cost, the atom bombs averted a far greater catastrophe”(Thomas). I also feel like the use of the atomic bombs are ethical when a nation is protecting its people. Due to the fact that Japan had already launched violent attacks against the United States, it is very much allowed that the United States protect itself and its people. However, I think that America could have used a slightly smaller bomb and still achieve the same effect. Overwhelming force in war should be used when there are little to no other options. I do believe that other nations or groups need to be humbled in order to stop hostilities because nations can often build a lot of confidence if they are never stood up against. In the case of Japan, their ideology around Pan-Asianism that they used against places like Manchuria and China could have escalated to the rest of Asia, which contained roughly 1.2 billion people in the nineteen forties and nineteen fifties.

The circumstances which are necessary and permissible to use overwhelming force of war are when the opposing side attacks first, and the option for negotiations and peace are out of hands. It is never fair to attack an third party, when they have no involvement with the tensions between the warring nations, thus making them collateral damage is immoral and unethical. At all possible costs, innocents should be avoided, only seeking revenge on those who initiated is the best case scenario. The same rules of Jus Ad Bellum should be applied with nuclear weapon usage. Although it seems intrinsic and idealistic to hope that violence can be warded off with simply talking it out but if there is a small possibility of making it out through peace, then why would you not pick the pacifist route?

Throughout the years, when there has been threats of atomic bomb use, like in the Cold war, we were able to be safe because both the United States and Russia had owned weapons that could completely deliberate the other side, agreeing that it was an mutually assured destruction. It is possible that without the US having any weapons in store for retaliation, Russia could’ve taken over, and would’ve never taken down the iron curtain. If a case like this occurred, it’s fair to retaliate through means necessary, depending on the impact of the initiating side.

Nations and groups need to be humbled decisively in order to stop hostilities and ultimately save lives. In the same way criminals will not be stopped unless prosecuted and punished, corrupt nations cannot be stopped unless held accountable by strict laws and other countries. It may also be possible to avoid a corrupt nation from spreading in the first place if these laws are strict and threatening enough, maybe risking valuables like land or authority if caught. We can see this happen with Khmer Rouge, communist soldiers under the leader named Pol Pot, who took over Cambodia during the late 1970’s and killed millions of lives (Britannica).These people were only stopped when there was an intervention from Vietnamese soldiers, showing that nations will have to be stopped, otherwise those under Pol Pot would’ve kept taking innocent lives, shooting people in killing fields and attempting to manipulate them through intense propaganda and enforcement. In circumstances like this, it is justified to have a total war, to protect the defenseless.

In conclusion, I don’t believe there are a specific list of rules that permits a war, since each starts differently and works differently, but it is best to attack when the other side attacks first, and is risking innocent lives. With the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, even though the same ideas had applied, I think the extent to which the United States took to take Japan down was unnecessary and too much, because they had involved a third party, AKA those living around the military base. The impact in which you retaliate back matters, and innocents should never be involved.

It is permissible to use overwhelming force in war, even if it means the intentional harm of non-combatants, if an opposing nation has already committed grave war crimes and atrocities, or if it will save more lives than possible alternatives. Even the U.S. War Department issued the Principles of War in 1940 that stated that exceptions to ethical war may be executed if they were “legitimate reprisals for illegal conduct by the enemy.” The atomic bombs were not exclusively tools to punish the Japanese, but part of it could be considered a retaliation to the crimes they committed.

Moreover, sometimes nations or groups need to be humbled decisively in order to stop hostilities and ultimately save lives. In the case of the Japanese in World War II, it was highly unlikely that its government or people would agree to the terms of unconditional surrender without some dramatic and severe consequence made against the nation. The Japanese imperial army emphasized honor, and would rather succumb to suicide or death than be defeated. Joseph Grew, former U.S. ambassador to Japan, said, “The Japanese will not crack morally or psychologically or economically, even when eventual defeat stares them in the face. They will pull their belts another notch and fight until the bitter end. Only by utter physical destruction or utter exhaustion can they be defeated.” The Japanese thought that they belonged to the greatest nation in the world, and dehumanized those of other races and ethnicities. They believed that they were superior to all other human beings and were given divine rights, which was their justification for the brutal treatment they inflicted upon civilians in the areas they conquered and prisoners of war. The Japanese were unwilling to adhere to ethical laws of war, and were also unwilling to negotiate terms of a surrender. An all-out invasion on the Japanese mainland would have been inevitable. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a high cost in civilian life, but their usage prevented further bloody firebombings like that of Tokyo and the potential destruction of a far larger quantity of urban infrastructure. At a certain point, overwhelming power must be used for defense and protection.

It is necessary and permissible to use overwhelming force in war when the opposing side is clearly not going to surrender. If the opposing party is clearly not intending to surrender, then the likelihood of a large number of casualties is very high, therefore using an overwhelming force that can stop the war is necessary. Under the circumstances of the atomic bomb, it was not necessary to drop two of them on Japan. There are some sources that say Japan was not ready to surrender, others say that Japan was on the verge of surrendering, so there is no telling of what Japan actually wanted to do. However, I think dropping one would have been sufficient. Although there are sources that say Japan would not have surrendered after one bomb, this cannot be entirely accurate because the second bomb was dropped within three days. In no way is this enough time to make such a big decision, such as surrendering in war. As a result thousands of innocent civilians were killed for no good reason. I believe that the second atomic bomb dropped in Nagasaki was just a way for the United States to assert dominance over Japan. Many who are in support of the atomic bomb say that the second bomb was dropped because Japan was not surrendering, however like I mentioned before, three days is not enough time to make crucial decisions that affect the entire country.

Some nations do need to be humbled decisively in order to stop hostilities, however it should be done in an ethical or reasonable way. The actions to humble these nations should not be on the same level as whatever atrocity was committed because that makes the two nations no different from each other. In the case of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, they were humbled after the first bomb. The second bomb only caused more lives to be wasted, not saved. Ultimately, dropping the second bomb on Japan made the United States stoop down to the level of Japan because the bomb unnecessarily took the lives of thousands of innocent people.

The question of when it is necessary and permissible to use overwhelming force in war, even if it means the intentional harm of civilians, raises lots of moral and ethical concerns. However, for some historical cases, you can argue that overwhelming force may sometimes be justified under extreme circumstances. One argument that can be made is that the only way to bring an end to a conflict is by breaking the will of the enemy, which could mean doing significant damage to both military and civilian buildings and people. The idea is that by forcing a nation or group to realize their defeat, they may realize that it is time to surrender, which would prevent them from further bloodshed and also save lives in the long term. World War II offers a good example of this with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States, which were justified by some at the time as necessary to hasten the end of the war, potentially saving millions of lives that would have been lost in a full out invasion of Japan. This is reflected in Stimson’s point of view where it says “Only the complete destruction of [Japan’s] military power could open the way to lasting peace”(Stimson). I agree partially with those who justified as I believe that the first bomb was just after Japan was warned thoroughly, however, still persisted, but I think the second bomb was overkill and did too much damage.

It is also sometimes true, though, that the harm caused to civilians in these situations often will exceed the military goal, and the long-term consequences of such actions can be devastating. The ethical justification for overwhelming force, particularly in the case of deliberate civilian harm, is difficult to defend from a moral standpoint, as it challenges the fundamental human rights of innocent people, however, I believe that if there is no other option and the situation is that dire, there may be an acception. I also believe that today there are more ways in which we can actually prevent this from happening. While there may be certain instances when overwhelming force is seen as necessary to end a war and prevent further loss of life, it should never be the first thought. Ultimately, the intentional harm of non-combatants should never really be considered, however, there are sometimes in the most extreme and carefully measured circumstances when it may be necessary, but with a commitment to minimizing civilian suffering whenever possible.

The use of the atomic bomb brings up whether it is necessary and permissible to use overwhelming force in war. It raises questions about the morality of war and the balance between what is more important, military objectives or the concerns of civilians. We can look at the Just War Theory which outlines principles aiming to ensure wars are fought for just causes and that the violence used is proportional. In the case of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, this was the United States' response to the harsh treatment of Americans under the Japanese. The question was whether more lives would be lost if the war continued or if the bomb was dropped, ultimately the bomb was dropped in order to prevent more American lives from being lost. In this situation, I think that this was a proportional response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and ended up sparing the lives of more people than if the war was to continue for however longer. The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki challenges the principles of the Just War Theory. However, the reasons for the bombings argue that it was a necessary action to end the war quickly and avoid a prolonged invasion of Japan which would have resulted in an even greater loss of life on both sides. From the American perspective, the bombings were seen as a way to force Japan’s surrender and bring the war to a rapid end. However, it is argued whether the bombings violated the rules of the theory because of the vast number of innocent civilians it harmed. The question of whether nations need to be humbled to stop hostilities and save lives is also a question in this war. In World War II some people believed that Japan’s military aggression needed to be weakened to ensure peace and that the Japanese were not going to surrender anytime soon. I think that this idea that the harm to non-combatants is justified is problematic because it can lead to cycles of violence and trauma. In more modern wars and conflicts the Geneva Conventions are in place to try and protect civilians and limit the harm done in war. Ultimately there should be a common goal to avoid escalation of war and do anything to make sure that the least amount of civilians are harmed.

There are circumstances when excessive force achieves lasting peace for a while. Although harm to people is a really serious problem, history shows that in some cases, a force like that has saved lives by using excessive measures and preventing conflict that could happen in the future. They would have approached the situation better, but that was a good political move for the United States. They could’ve picked a better place to choose that would cause them to kill fewer civilians. I don’t think it was ethical for them to drop the atomic bombs but it might’ve been necessary to do. People shouldn’t be sacrificed because their government or military chose to make certain decisions, it doesn’t always mean that the people don’t agree with the government, but some don’t and innocent lives are taken away. I don’t believe that war can ever be justified because people do whatever they think is right and everyone’s morals are completely different. I think my views would be different because from an outside view, it just looks like one is getting what they deserve based on their own actions so it seems justified. I think that as a nation, once someone threatens your people (especially from the view of the government and powerful officials), it justifies their reasons to defend their people, regardless of what they do to do so. A war shouldn’t play with the lives of people that don’t deserve it at all, there should be no reason that soldiers should have joy when going to war and there should be no reason that they are put in that position to kill people at all. Using atomic warfare is better than war in a way because it prevents further use of violence, regardless of how many people it killed.

I believe that the use of overwhelming force in war should be necessary only under extreme circumstances. A country’s responsibility is to protect itself and its citizens from any external threat. It can be argued that circumstances like that of WWII made it permissible for America to use the Atomic bomb. I agree with this as many American soldiers were killed in horrible, torturous ways. Additionally, there was also a great threat for Japanese invasion on American soil which was further fueled by the attack on pearl harbor. All of these attacks on the US made it permissible for them to have responded in such a way to Japanese hostility as it weakened their army extremely and was likely the main reason for Japan's ultimate surrender. The dropping of the bomb seems to have been an adequate response to Japanese hostility as they were not only committing war crimes against Americans but also against any enemy they encountered, including innocent civilians. I believe a nation like Japan at the time needed to be “humbled decisively” because their way of military was honestly barbaric. This was seen through the stories and records of them having “comfort women/camps” as well as a story about two army generals competing to see who could murder the most people with a sword. Characteristics like these showed the society’s ideals at the time and likely reflected their intense nationalism as they wanted to kill anyone who wasn’t Japanese. With this ideology, the US’s atomic bomb was likely one of the only responses to have been taken seriously by the Japanese as anything lower than that could’ve dragged the war on longer and would’ve likely caused many more deaths. Despite all of this, I do disagree with the dropping of the second bomb in Nagasaki as the Japanese were not given enough time to come up with a response or likely a surrender, so thousands of people were killed, maybe even unnecessarily.

In context of the atomic bomb specifically, I believe that it was a necessary evil in order to prevent further, widespread suffering. Though it is unethical and wholly wrong to suggest that the death of hundreds of thousands of people might “only be so bad,” it is unmistakable that this immediate loss of life was still, unfortunately, what prevented the deaths of countless more. Both in the face of the deeply loyal Japanese Nationalists, to the threats of further war and conquest of its military, the atomic bomb was the tool to which a prideful, formidable nation was “humbled” -- that is, threatened into communications of peace. In theory, it is much easier to believe that violence is always wrong, that there is always another alternative. But in the context of World War II, and under a far more realistic eye, violence -- even such a mass scale of it -- is sometimes exactly what can shepard a nation or a people away from times of war. In no world could I imagine myself making this same decision, or anyone else in modern times for that matter. Looking back in hindsight, however, I see no other viable option that would have concluded the war -- as such potential years and years of unfettered suffering -- and have to admit that this overwhelming force in an era of conflict was not ethical, but wholly justified. It’s difficult to imagine another such situation unfolding, in which the stakes of the world are so drastic, and the scale of death becomes a tool to which one forms a decision -- even more so in the debate of whether a weapon such as the atomic bomb could ever excusably be used again. Though difficult to imagine, I simply understand the consequence and implications of the time in which it originated, and keep hold of the opinion that, sometimes, a more peaceful, drawn out solution can actively be more harmful.