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.

Based on the continuity of human history, it is evident that the benefits of using overwhelming forces in war and doing the opposite go hand in hand in regards to necessity. On one hand, in order to alleviate the continuity of hatred and reach a world peace, we must end the extent to which nations are willing to kill, as evidenced by “ (Adm. Takijiro Onishi). If we are prepared to sacrifice 20 million Japanese lives, victory will be ours!” However, the complications of modern world politics goes beyond this statement. Realism in international relations, which stresses that nations act in their own self-interest and often rely on force to secure their goals, provides a backdrop for understanding why total war might be necessary. It would take years, if not centuries, before the world reached consensus on wars. For example, many modern conflicts derive from centuries of tension and old wars. In my opinion, death is not avoidable in wars, however, it is not permissible if the intention is to create malice (according to international laws and war crimes) upon innocent civilians, who are also key players in a thriving and progressive society. apan was determined to fight to the bitter end, the use of overwhelming force, including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was seen by many as the only viable option. However, even when acknowledging this, it does not erase moral complications. In the case of atomic bombings, the decision to use this extensive force, the nature of how all wars end, cannot justify the thousands of civilians who suffered this tragic event. To them, it was not a means of war, but acts of terror. Essentially, “just because something is necessary, doesn’t make it right”. In the case of many events in human history this same idea is emphasized. This narrative comes up, which highlights that there is always a place for evil in society, no matter how much we strive to eliminate these forces of evil.

There are no circumstances in which it is necessary and permissible to use overwhelming force in war and intentionally harm civilians except if there is a situation where every warring nation is using unethical tactics to shape the war in their favor, it may be necessary to sacrifice one's morals to keep your nation alive. Nevertheless, in the case of the U.S. and their decision to release the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. was wrong. Some may argue that this decision was strategically correct and that Japan would not have surrendered if it weren't for the bomb. Many may also justify it by including the fact of the hundreds of thousands dying daily in the Japan-occupied Southeast Asia as well as the American soldiers giving their lives for this war. This standpoint, however, becomes a moral dilemma, as by justifying the loss of life to save other lives, you are comparing the weight of the lives of individuals. In addition, this standpoint ignores the other factors that pushed Japan to surrender that had nothing to do with the threat of the atomic bomb. Japan at first struggled to surrender due to the United States’ request for an unconditional surrender. This threatened the figurehead of the Japanese emperor, threatening their entire culture. It was only until after the United States reworded their request and allowed for the preservation of the role of the Japanese emperor did the Japanese surrender. On top of this, the Japanese were threatened by The Soviet Union’s entry into the war against Japan. Some nations or groups should be humbled decisively in order to stop hostilities and ultimately save lives, but the manner in which this is carried out is important. The loss of lives of non-combatants should be limited to the fullest capability of the warring nation. There should be a focus on attacking military bases and key communication centers but in a manner in which as many lives are preserved as possible. An example of what should not have been done would be the United State’s release of a massive bomb on Hiroshima in which they claimed had a key military base and used this as a justification to attack the city. However, a bomb of such magnitude was not necessary as it included the lives of innocent civilians.

Ideally, overwhelming force would never be used in war, but as discussed at the start of the year, war is not ideal either. Overwhelming force may be necessary in a situation in which a war does not seem that it will end promptly and the overall suffering will be lessened through the use of overwhelming force. It is hard to reason that this is the case at any point in time because it involves a lot of hypotheticals about the future. The clarification about the timing of the war is important because of the amount of damage caused in war. A general for the United States government “believed that Japan would have surrendered as early as May 1945” without overwhelming force of war (Was There a Diplomatic Alternative?). The professional opinion here demonstrates that overwhelming forces should not be used in war if an end to the war is predicted in the near future.

The necessity of overwhelming force in war does not mean that it is permissible. Permissibility implies that the ‘intentional harm of non-combatants’ is ethical. However, civilians should not suffer for their government’s actions. It is extremely difficult to use overwhelming force on a nation without harming civilians, which raises the question: how can a nation respond appropriately to unjust warfare? The idea that nations as a whole ‘need to be humbled’ is compelling because civilians fall under the realm of the nation, but their actions (for the most part) do not lead to their government’s actions in war. To humble a nation is to kill non-combatants in this case, but if a greater number of lives are being saved in the long run, the use of overwhelming force may be justified. This is a more consequentialist look at total war, because people are saved in the long run. However, an intrinsic view would say that killing anyone is wrong no matter what. In this situation, intrinsicism and consequentialism overlap because if the killing of many would occur in the long run, both ideologies would fight against that.

The use of overwhelming force in war should never be permissible, although it might be necessary. One of the rules of just war is that you must believe you have the ability to quickly defeat an enemy. Therefore, there should be no situation where you must use excessive force to make less lives be lost. Additionally, the use of overwhelming force always ends in the discussion of whose life is more important, us or them? That is a question that no one should answer because the answer will always be us, because we cannot comprehend the other side’s suffering. In relation to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Americans killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese people to save themself from having deaths on both sides. That is absurd. Realizing you want out of a war because your soldiers are dying so you slaughter hundreds of thousands on the other side is completely unreasonable. Furthermore, when situations arise where you have the opportunity to murder non-combatants, you should never take it. War inherently is not moral or just, but without the rules of just warfare and human morals in general, there would be no ethics. Without the attempt to make war as just and as moral as it possibly can be our society crumbles. It would be like how people act during the Purge. Additionally, justifying violating ethics because someone else is violating ethics sounds like an elementary school fight where your mother tells you “If your friend jumped off a bridge would you?” You should never bring yourself down to the level of others, your morals and ethics as a country should not be affected by the actions of other nations. In the context of World War II, America justified the use of the atomic bombs because Japan was in total war and was not being moral. However, if America had actually cared about the way the Japanese were conquering, like with the Rape of Nanjing and the use of comfort women, we should have stepped in before Peral Harbor. We only started caring when they brought the war to us, we cannot hold ourselves to this moral high ground of stopping these horrible acts if we did not do anything when they actually happened.

I think it is necessary to use overwhelming force in war as a last resort, and a last resort only. I find that force is not strategically efficient if there are other methods and negotiations to be made, reflecting some aspects of the just war theory. In the case of the bomb, there were clearly other options and ways to go about forcing Japan to surrender, which is even acknowledged at the time prior to the use of the atomic bomb. In the Asia Pacific Journal, it quotes Dwight Eisenhower, a trusted military leader and future president, saying, “‘I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…’ Japan “has no allies,” its “navy is nearly destroyed,” she is vulnerable to an economic blockade depriving her “of sufficient food and supplies for her population,” she is “terribly vulnerable to our concentrated air attack upon her crowded cities, industrial, and food resources” (Asia Pacific Journal). Although Japan wasn’t surrendering even in its weakened state, overwhelming force was not necessary and negotiations could have been made that prevented further losses on both sides.

Additionally, I do agree with the point that some nations should be humbled to a certain extent to stop hostilities and ultimately save lives, however, doing it in a way that endangers non-combatants who have little to nothing to do with a conflict is unethical. Again, in the case of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, Japan bombed a naval military base, where there would be less innocent civilians and more military troops. Although there were several losses on America’s end, the resulting hatred toward the Japanese, which then desentisized U.S. citizens to anything that happened to them, was unjustified only due to the disproportionate loss of life from the bombings. The U.S. decided to target Hiroshima on the basis of having an untouched military base, however, the bomb had landed in the heart of the city, making the bombing a deliberate attack on innocent non-combatants (NPR). Furthermore, there are some who argue that dropping the bomb actually delayed the ending of the war due to the U.S. on course to make negotiations with Japan’s emperor. This shows that it is not always necessary to use force to humble a nation, and that the loss of lives can be prevented through reasonable and peaceful negotiations.

The circumstances that it is necessary to use overwhelming force in war, buy evidence of history, even if it means the intentional harm of non-combatants, is a question that has a different answer depending on what battle is being fought, and who is doing the fighting. There is no way to justify one side choosing who lives and who dies as “necessary” but another word, “last resort” is a more common excuse used during World War 2. When America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, they had suffered the worst soldier casualties thus far, and were projected to lose thousands more. However, Americans were fighting on Japanese soil, and therefore they were losing more non-combatants than the Americans, which doesn’t let the Americans decide what is necessary for all, just what they feel is “necessary”.

I do not think nationals need to be humbled to live. While the dropping of the atomic bomb could have been avoided if Americans continued to drop B-29 or search for a more diplomatic solution, Americans felt like it was running out of time. On top of that, they had only one likely target to test their atomic weapon to flex their nuclear arsenal, and Japan was the last country standing. America used this to consider what moves to take next, ultimately deciding that to save their lives and stop the Japanese “hostiles”, they would drop two atomic bombs. They did not do so by being humble.

Americans had been socialized, especially after Pearl Harbor, to see Japanese people as out of this world. They were willing to use total war as a tactic not only to end the war quickly, but due to their forgo of human lives because they did not, in fact, see the Japanese as human beings. Instead, they felt the fear of another Pearl Harbor, and used overwhelming force to protect its own nation. In doing this, I think they are justified to think of the American people, but the main goal of the war was escaping the Americans as they developed an atomic weapon. This led leaders in America to become lazy in searching for another way out, and rather than spend more time finding another way, they took thousands of Japanese civilian lives.

As a result of the internal humanitarian law discussions held during the Geneva Conventions, it is morally and ethically agreed upon that civilians should not be targeted by any means. Additionally, these conventions helped to establish a boundary between disproportionate and proportionate force: “the use of a level of force that is reasonable and appropriate in relation to the threat faced.” However, there is a clear struggle to determine when overwhelming forces should be used to humble other nations in order to prevent a further loss of lives on both sides.

Japan’s refusal to follow and negotiate humanitarian laws during World War II had created the certain circumstance by which overwhelming force may be appropriate to apply, for the sole reason of stopping the war by shocking the Japanese and restricting them from further violent action. According to an excerpt of Evan Thomas’s Article “The Bomb Was Horrifying. The Alternatives Would Have Been Worse:” “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. Dropping two atom bombs, Stimson wrote, was “the least abhorrent choice.”” Thomas argues that the Japanese were preparing for total war, which is completely unrestricted combat with no regards to innocent lives, which had led to fear amongst the Japanese and American citizens alike. To prevent this further dishevelment, I am in agreement that the atomic bomb must’ve been used. It is important to note that other actions were taken prior to this decision, yet the Japanese war officials and emperor had refused to surrender; there had been attempts to discuss with the Japanese, but the violent pursuits had only continued from both sides, leaving the atomic bomb as a “last resort.” I do believe the United States’ choice to use the atomic bomb, without being completely sure of all of its after-effects, was ethically wrong on their part, given that so many innocent Japanese cities and citizens were destroyed.

The Japanese stance during World War II was so specific that it is almost impossible to generalize the idea of atomic warfare, especially in modern conflicts. I am in full belief that overwhelming force such as nuclear warfare should only be utilized as a last resort, in an attempt to prevent a further extreme loss of lives. In most conflicts, I believe that innocent lives should be preserved and not put in extreme danger by any means, but if all other resolutions had been exercised, the use of overwhelming force is appropriate to achieve peace with the least amount of suffering for those who are not involved directly in the war.

The use of overwhelming force should only be used in response to an overwhelming force. Despite this, more peaceful options should be explored, as such forces are likely to cause civilian casualties. If a peace treaty is available, nuclear weapons are no longer necessary to end a war. In the case of the United States, it can be argued that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary. many politicians, people, and military officials believed that the Japanese were growing weak from fighting many wars and would be willing to sign a peace treaty. However, they also wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally and to dispose of the emperor, which was criticized by the Japanese as unfair. A general argued that, “allowing the emperor to remain would enable the U.S. to better manage Japan’s postwar reconstruction” (Asia Pacific Journal). However, support for an unconditional surrender remained, and the Japanese were not willing to accept it.

Many argue that the bombings were necessary to potentially save the lives of many American soldiers. However, preventing thousands of potential deaths should not be done by causing further civilian deaths. This reasoning makes the use of the atomic bomb in the war morally and ethically wrong. The purpose of the bombings is to scare Japan into accepting the Americans’ demands, which would have also been fulfilled if the targets were military bases instead of cities. Many also believe that the Japanese were too “hostile” to surrender at all. Propaganda has allowed people to believe that certain people or groups are more stronger than they seem, which can justify using overwhelming forces against them. It has already been said the strained state of the Japanese military was known by government officials, so it was possible that even the threat of the atomic bomb (especially after the firebombing of Tokyo) could have invoked Japan to surrender.

Ultimately, this calls into question the response nations should take when a belligerent refuses to abide by the rules of war. I believe that such belligerents could be deterred by the presence of powerful weapons instead of their use. If the use of these weapons were deemed necessary, they should minimize civilian deaths. In recent times, diplomatic actions have proven to be inconsequential, as accusations of war crimes fail to influence leaders. If there must be a purely peaceful option, there must also be those who are willing to accept peace, but also those who are willing to take action against those who reject the rules of war. Thus, it is easy to use morals to justify actions in the short term, but difficult to take actions to preserve morals in the long term.

The only case that would make the use of overwhelming force in war permissible would be as an absolute last resort. There are very few situations where I believe that citizens should ever be harmed in war as these are simply regular people and have no effect on war; killing civilians is simply unnecessary and unfair to them. Regardless if another country does bad things towards another country's civilians, that is still not an excuse for said country to attack the other country’s civilians because those people did nothing wrong. However, another country was going to do something atrocious or has been doing something that will affect many people and there are no more options to use, overwhelming force is permissible in this situation because it is truly for the greater good. Overwhelming force itself also has different magnitudes. An overwhelming force for one country could be different for another and an overwhelming force could be different in the same country as well. You can have just enough overwhelming force where you can overpower another country or you can use such an overwhelming force that said country is obliterated and simply gone from the map. Similar to how the United States bombed Japan; the United States used such an overwhelming force that it completely decimated all life and that is arguably not permissible. I believe overwhelming force is only permissible when it is just enough power to stop the battle with the least casualties possible. I do not have an exact nation in mind when I say I agree that some nations need to be humbled but I do agree with the idea of humbling an overconfident nation. This is because an overconfident nation could cause more wars or battles due to their confidence that they can handle it and that would simply result in unnecessary deaths. However, that could all be avoided if we simply humbled said nation and it knows where it truly stands in terms of power compared to other countries and won’t start more wars or battles or conflicts in general.