Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 11
LTQ 7: The Ethics of the Atomic Bomb
It is necessary and permissible to use overwhelming force in war, even potentially meaning the intentional harm of non-combatants, given the circumstance that one’s country and people are in serious danger. This wasn’t necessarily the case for the United States after the Pearl Harbor attack, which although devastating and tragic, was no reason to drop two atomic weapons on cities filled with innocent people. Rather than cause more unnecessary death and destruction, the United States should have attempted more efforts to reason with Japan and arrive at a peaceful resolution. Additionally, the scale at which the United States responded was unwarranted and not proportionate to the Pearl Harbor Attack. According to NPR News, there was substantial evidence that Japan most likely would have surrendered had the US initiated an effort to negotiate a condition, as long as the emperor’s position was maintained. Furthermore, according to the Asia-Pacific Journal, seven out of eight high-ranking U.S. military commanders held the belief that the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary. The United States should have also waited longer for Japan to surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima, as the second bombing was abrupt and uncalled for, given the fact that Japan was likely to surrender. Some nations or groups that are overly ambitious and desire domination do need to be humbled decisively to stop hostility and ultimately save lives. However, dropping atomic bombs on cities is an unjustifiable way of “humbling” a nation. It was a course of action that led to the suffering and death of thousands of individuals, who even if survived, suffered dire long-term effects. All things being said, in most cases nations should maintain a moral and ethical “high ground” in war and abide by the laws of war, especially if chances of victory are probable whilst upholding the laws of war.
South Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 10
Reflections of the Ethics of the Atomic Bomb
In the circumstances of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I’d say it was necessary to use the overwhelming force of the atomic bomb. I feel like the basis of war is fighting fire with fire, and when a nation clearly violates the agreed upon guidelines of war then it would be up to the other nations to take care of it. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just a ploy to kill as many civilians as possible for retribution, but to target their military cities that were supplying a good amount of support to the Japanese war effort. Atomic bombs are definitely a double edged sword because they have immense destructive capabilities that can turn the tide of the war, but they can also easily backfire when in conflict with another country that has the capabilities to make one. Overwhelming force can quickly cross many ethical lines if it gets out of hand, but it is a necessary evil in certain situations. Some lives need to be disregarded for the lives of the whole that could be saved. However, in reference to WW2, the US was the only country to successfully use an atomic bomb which ruled out fear of atomic retaliation. The opinion of the people is also a big deciding factor of how using the bomb is received. At the time of WW2, more specifically after Pearl Harbor, “Most Americans approved of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan; some wished their countrymen had dropped more. Many people—millions of veterans returning home, their long-awaiting families—were grateful to have avoided an invasion.” The effects on the civilians during war is one of the most important aspects to take into account. This reasoning is why Japan needed to be humbled decisively in order to stop hostilities and ultimately save lives due to their treatment of all civilians. The Japanese treatment of the Chinese before and during the war was outrageous and violated many regulations during war time. The bomb allowed for the US to win a decisive victory not only to re-enforced ethical lines that shouldn’t be crossed, but to also save lives by finishing WW2. It is a delicate balance that is constantly toeing the line between just or unjust, but every little detail needs to be taken into account for the betterment of the people as a whole.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 10
Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary and Permissible
The argument that many brought to the table against the atomic bomb was that many generals said it was unnecessary to win the war, like Admiral Macarthur, and that it was inhuman. To put an end to so many innocent human lives, so swiftly, and to intentionally harm non-combatants, for the most part- is determined against the conduct of fair war. But I believe that in the muse of an oppressive regime such as this one, it’s necessary to use excessive force, and also, I fully believe that in the long run, so many more lives were saved. People fail to dig deeper into the fact that most American generals said that to win the country would have needed to be starved first, and also continually bombed. If you put that into perspective of the 260,000 who died, the toll could have been far higher if the bomb had never been used. Fire bombings in Tokyo across a longer time span killed 300,000 people, so It’s not that far off to presume that the starvation and bombings would have resulted in many murdered civilians as well. Plus, you also have to account for the fact that even after some surrender, many regiments that didn’t fight with the atomic bomb might have made last stands, and guerilla warfare could have ensued. Aside from the ifs, buts, and maybes, there is the inevitable truth- the threat of nuclear retaliation, and the presence of deterrence on the global stage is the only reason that bloody meat grinder wars haven’t happened in the most modern years since WW2. Mutually assured destruction, as bad as it sounds, has likely saved millions of lives. Even putting that aside, if the U.S. didn’t use it first, and instead a country like the USSR did, what could have been the possible outcomes or consequences? War tactics, especially ones like these shouldn’t be decided based off the punishment of a nation, and making them pay for their crimes. That only perpetuates cycles of hate. However, you should do a cost-benefit analysis, and in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more lives were saved in the long and short run.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 10
Atomic Bomb Ethics
I think there are certain circumstances in which it is permissible to use overwhelming amounts of force in war even if it means harming non-combatants. In world war 2, Japan was a very ruthless country in terms of how it treated other nations. In the United States dropping the bomb they made a choice they deemed ethical as if the war were to continue Japan would’ve killed upward of 250,000 civilians in countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and China. If the US didn’t drop the bomb then more lives would’ve been lost. If they just wanted to drop the bomb just to do it then that wouldn’t have been permissible as now it enables countries to do something unethical in killing a lot of people just because they did. The idea is that they had to make the choice in killing a lot of people in order to save many more that could’ve died had they not acted. I don’t necessarily think that some nations need to be humbled decisively in order to stop hostilities as I think that creates a social hierarchy among countries which isn’t a good structure to have. If one country is doing something considered bad and a more powerful nation can just come in and stop them no matter what. It seems to create a power divide between the powerful nations in terms of strength and weaker ones. Looking at today there can be a comparison between the USA flexing the amount of military strength it has over other nations. This even today can be seen with the USA and smaller countries in power, not saying this is exactly the same but the usa is using its social status and trade power and is attempting to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico. The country did this to keep the USA in power.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 11
Reflections of the Ethics of the Atomic Bomb
I think that under certain extreme circumstances, the use of overwhelming force is necessary in war. Prior to the dinner table discussion, I was stuck between both sides as I couldn’t tell if each side’s pros and cons were stronger than the other’s. The use of the atomic bomb killed hundreds of thousands of people but also potentially saved the lives of American soldiers. On one side, the bombs killed innocents, but on the other side, people from the United States survived. In the dinner table discussion, many of my groupmates said that the use of atomic weapons was necessary to force Japan to surrender. Their crimes against humanity and women throughout the war were inconceivable as they were so incredibly harsh and cruel. Without the use of the atomic bombs, Japan would’ve either killed all these women or taken them back to Japan to die with them. One group mate also said that Japan deserved it for their crimes and that it was karma for their actions. I agree that the Japanese needed to be stopped, but I disagree with the opinion that all these people deserved it. I agree with the dropping of the bombs as it led to a sharp decrease in morale and caused enough destruction to force a surrender that saved Japanese and American lives. In an article I read, it said that if the bombs weren’t dropped, there was a high chance that the United States would’ve cut off outside food supplies to Japan to starve them to death. This would’ve likely resulted in far more civilian casualties. I think that some civilian losses will have to be taken for some situations, as it’s impossible to have no innocents killed in a state of total war. We have to fight back equally against a threat that threatens us as it can only lead to more loss and destruction if we hold back.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 7
Reflections of the Ethics of the Atomic Bomb
I understand the argument that war is brutal and the laws and rules are difficult to define when it comes to protecting the people of your nation from "the enemy" and sometimes leaders justify overwhelming force by claiming it will end conflicts faster and save lives in the long run. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki show how the line can be blurred in times of war, as the first bomb was dropped to force Japan into submission, but with the use of the second bomb, it crossed an ethical line concerning its proper uses and whether it was correct. The first bomb on Hiroshima was already devastating. Japan was already on the verge of surrendering and many people believe that if the U.S. had given them more time to process the destruction, they likely would have surrendered without the need of the second bomb. But just three days later, Nagasaki was hit, sending a message, not only to Japan but to the rest of the world. This is what makes the second bomb particularly troubling because instead of murdering innocents and creating radioactive sites, the U.S. could have diplomatically explored other options into dissuading conflict with other nations, especially the Soviet Union. The second bomb, in my opinion, was unnecessary and unjustifiable since it wasn’t about saving lives, it was about power and destruction. Especially since the target was thriving cities, instead of military or strategical areas that would impede further conflict. Even if leaders believe it’s for the “greater good"(which could just be a way of making their nation believe that a forceful nuclear submission is correct) of the nation and its people, intentionally targeting or harming civilian lives, other ordinary people and humans, sets a dangerous precedent. If one country justifies it, the other nations could surely follow in its footsteps and become irresponsible with the power they hold and irrationally unleash destructive power instead of finding other, less destructive ways of solving conflicts.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 11
LTQ 7: The Ethics of the Atomic Bomb
Under no circumstances is overwhelming force, such as an atomic bomb, permissible. Harm to non-combatants should be avoided at all costs, even if the repercussions may be extreme. When looking at the World War and the bombings holistically, many tend to believe that this action was a necessary precaution to combat against the suffering of Americans and ultimately more people with war violence. An article from Foreign Policy describes how “The Japanese had moved close to a million men and thousands of kamikazes of one kind or another (plane, torpedo, boat, frogman) into position in anticipation of the U.S. invasion of Kyushu. The cost was projected to be several hundred thousand Americans killed or wounded” (Foreign Policy). This emphasizes the idea that American citizens were bound to be hurt if the United States did not drop the bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, this raises the question on where we value human life. Do certain citizens and groups of people have more value when they are closer in relation to you? How come American lives must be saved and honored, but the same is not done with the lives of Japanese citizens. I believe that the value of human life is all equal. Holistically, there is no reason why the lives of American citizens should be prioritized over the likes of Japanese civilians, but it is understandable coming from the perspective of the government. It is likely that they are willing to prioritize American citizens; these are their people--their in-group that they have found solace in.
No, nations do not need to be humbled, at least physically. Prior to the bomb, the idea of Japan surrendering and ending the war was a discussion, even though it was never fully a plan. This implies that a bomb is not a necessary action to get Japan to surrender--there are other ways. Another important factor would be some of the advantages that America has on Japan. For example, they were able to get some intel on them as they were intercepting some of their communication. Completely humbling a population does not always have to be the end--it can be seen in other wars (War of 1812, Iran-Iraq War, and the Aroostook War.) It is not a necessary course of action to end a war.
West Roxbury, MA, US
Posts: 11
I do not believe it is permissible to use overwhelming force in war unless the future of your nation as a whole is being threatened. In the case of the atomic bomb, such a violent and forceful response from the US was not necessarily permissible because the US was not being absolutely dominated by Japan and this was not the only way for them to win the war. There were many indications and reasons to believe that Japan was nearly ready to surrender, which proves that the US was not being overwhelmed with violence and force from Japan, and in fact the US was dominating Japan to the point that the Japanese were nearing the point of surrendering. Therefore, the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was not necessary because the future of the US as a nation was not at risk. The use of such a devastating weapon that has the power to kill so many civilians should not be permissible in any case where it is not a last resort. If there are other options, those should be exhausted before a nation resorts to using such a devastating weapon. When the US used the atomic bomb, this was not the case. Their other option was to invade Japan, which they wanted to avoid doing because it would have cost the lives of American soldiers that were saved by their use of the atomic bomb. While it is understandable to want to save as many American lives as possible, the use of such a deadly weapon was still not ethical. It was not a last resort and America was already in a more powerful position. I do believe that in some extreme cases nations or groups do need to be humbled in order to stop hostilities and save lives, but I do not believe that in the case of the US and Japan it was an extreme enough situation to justify using this weapon. Japan was treating American citizens poorly, but if America chose a different, less extreme option than the atomic bomb, Japan would have surrendered and all of the lives of those Japanese citizens could have been saved.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 11
LTQ 7: The Ethics of the Atomic Bomb
It is sometimes necessary to use overwhelming force in war if the target of this threat is committing atrocities and war crimes and directly violating human rights on an extremely large scale, and it is clear that they will not end their behavior through means other than being destroyed. This is somewhat subjective, as are all ethical things related to war, which makes it hard to determine if actions such as these (like the usage of the atomic bomb) are permissible. However, I think a very important aspect of the decision to use extreme force is the fact that the target will not stop their behavior under any other circumstances, especially peaceful alternatives. For this reason, I think that the usage of the atomic bomb by the United States on Japan in World War II was necessary. The US ambassador to Japan, Joseph Grew, stated, “I know the Japanese intimately. The Japanese will not crack. They will not crack morally or psychologically or economically, even when eventual defeat stares them in the face. They will pull in their belts another notch and fight to the bitter end. Only by utter physical destruction or utter exhaustion can they be defeated.” Grew emphasises that Japan will continue to wage brutal war on both the United States and surrounding Asian nations until they are destroyed. Considering the fact that Japan was torturing US soldiers and raping thousands of Asian women and causing an immense amount of destruction and death, their defeat was needed as soon as possible. It is also extremely important to note that the entire war ended very soon after the usage of these atomic weapons, meaning that the suffering in battle and concentration camps in Europe ended as well. Using overwhelming force in war, if it means ending immense amounts of suffering and if it is proven necessary due to the target’s refusal to back down in any other circumstances, is permissible.
