learntoquestion ltq discussions

It is never justifiable to end the lives of large numbers of non-combatants, even when they are part of an enemy nation, because civilians are not responsible for their government’s actions and therefore should not reap the consequences of it. Sometimes it is clear that diplomatic discussions are not going to work. But that doesn’t mean that the only other option is ending thousands of civilian lives. This applies to the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The article, “Was There a Diplomatic Alternative? The Atomic Bombing and Japan's Surrender” says that, “seven out of eight top U.S. military commanders believed that it was unnecessary to use atomic bombs against Japan from a military-strategic vantage point.” There were other, non atomic, bombs that had already been dropped, a sea blockade, and Japan was on the verge of surrender. The fact that now it is popular belief that the U.S. dropped the bomb to force Japan to surrender and “save half a million American lives” is really just lies/propaganda to cover up the cognitive dissonance of doing something so horrible. Even if one makes the argument that America had to drop the atomic bomb to end the war (which I do not), the government still should have dropped the bomb on a military base or onto equipment. The death and injury of thousands of people who had no say in the atrocities that Japan committed was not justifiable nor necessary to end the war.

While yes, it’s possible that killing non combatants can frighten an enemy state into submission, it can also enrage the enemy state, causing them to lash out more aggressively and violently, or cause a cycle of violence to ensue. For example, Hamas is an unethical terrorist organization and it's very hard for Israel to reason with them. But, violence also certainly does not work. Years of apartheid and violence towards Palestinian civilians has contributed to a cycle of violence and displacement. I believe there are ways to assert dominance and end conflicts without killing civilians, even when dealing with unethical power bases.

I am inclined to believe that with the age of atomic weapons there are nearly no circumstances in which usage of the most extreme force available to us would be justified. Utilizing weapons that will cause mass death of civilians dehumanizes individuals of other nations, as it implicitly suggest that all citizens of a nation are complicit in international conflict, even when they are completely removed from influence over declarations of war and may hold opinions that diverge from the official positions of their governments. This creates an environment apt for hatred of civilians on both sides towards those of opposing nations, which further polarizes the global community.

On the level of international relations, I believe, especially currently, the usage of extreme force may not be a deterrent for nations, as nuclear proliferation has caused more nations than ever to possess their own nuclear weapons or become a part of military alliances with nations that have nuclear arsenals. Thus the logic Henry Stimson presented whereby the US was justified in using nuclear force against Japan to stop future death, even if it cost civilian lives, may simply cease to function in the current configuration of the world in which many nations have the power to retaliate with the same force. Seeking out the ability to deal a decisive and crippling defeat to another nation would likely mean developing technology even more destructive than the nuclear weapon, which would put humanity on the track directly opposite to seeking peace that could lead to our ultimate unraveling.

I furthermore do not believe that nuclear weapons are likely to be the best last resort in any conflict, as we have an increasingly developing network of diplomacy channels and a growing understanding of different cultures that allows us to be more conscientious of how to conduct negotiations. In the case of the bombings in Japan, the article Was There A Diplomatic Alternative? The Atomic Bombing and Japan’s Surrender suggests that a surrender may have been reached if the US had offered the emperor of Japan retention of his title under US control before they bombed the nation, as the potential dismantling of the role of emperor was the biggest reason Japan would not accept unconditional surrender terms. Moreover, the maintenance of the emperor’s role was effectively agreed on even after the bombs were dropped, suggesting it was not an inconceivable compromise to be made. Likewise, many modern situations may have diplomatic options that have not yet become exhausted. The difficulty lies in how polarized our world has become and the reality of many world leaders’ inability and unwillingness to conduct discussions with one another, a situation that is not helped by threats of nuclear war and increases likelihood of unjust war and war crimes. A world without war and the use of extreme force is likely an idealistic dream, yet I fear a world in which our automatic reflex is to detonate nuclear weapons and in which civilian life is completely sacrificed.

The presence of atomic bombs has prevented war and served as a means for countries to dissuade total war from being a threat to them. In conclusion, as every conflict begins and operates differently, I don't think there is a set of laws that allow for war, but it is better to strike when the opposing side is attacking first and endangering the lives of innocent people. Even if the same principles apply to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I believe that the United States went too far in destroying Japan because they had involved a third party, i.e., the local population near the military installation. The effect of your retaliation is important. Nevertheless, I do believe that the US government had goals beyond merely bringing the conflict to a conclusion. They intended to prove a point to the world, demonstrate their strength, and use the bomb before the Soviet Union or Germany did. It would not have been acceptable for them to drop the bomb if they had been absolutely certain that Japan was going to surrender. However, Japan refused to give up. They remained hesitant even after one explosion. Although it's simple to sit here today and argue that dropping the bombs was wrong, people were experiencing the destruction of war on a daily basis at the time. Families were losing loved ones, the economy was overburdened, and American soldiers were dying. Millions of people had already died in the conflict, and there was no obvious end in sight. According to a Gallup poll conducted immediately following the bombings, 85% of Americans were in favor of unleashing the atomic bomb. For them, the argument wasn't intellectual; rather, it was one of survival, of preventing their fathers, brothers, and sons from being sent into a bloody land invasion that may claim hundreds of thousands of lives. They were focused on getting the conflict over with as quickly as possible, not on the long-term moral ramifications. This is not to argue that the atomic bomb was a bad thing; it helped humanity in many ways by advancing nuclear physics and may have stopped more wars from breaking out because of the destruction it could cause.