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.

In my own personal opinion, there is no acceptable case for the usage of overwhelming force that may harm civilians in war in the current time, especially the use of nuclear weapons when extreme collateral damage is expected, and the likeliness of radiation poisoning is known of. In the case of the United States’ use of two atomic bombs against Japan at the end of the Second World War, as unethical as their use on a civilian target was, there was no way of knowing the effects of radiation on people at the time, and I think that had the effects been known, there would have been more hesitation before their use. Therefore, in the American belief that an effect like radiation poisoning didn’t exist, the use of atomic bombs for the sake of preventing further bloodshed by both sides was justified. Had the atomic bombs not been used against Japan, there would have likely been further use of firebombing in Japanese cities as there had been in Tokyo, ultimately causing more unneeded deaths than there already had been. There also would have been heavy consideration for an invasion of the Japanese home islands by American soldiers, which would have eventually resulted in heavy civilian casualties to the Japanese as well as military casualties to both sides, as there already had been from American island hopping campaigns.

Additionally, although the use of atomic bombs is highly unethical, the existence of nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants has ultimately resulted in a much more cautious approach when two world powers come into some kind of conflict with one another. For example, had the concept of nuclear war not existed during the time of the Cold War, The United States and Russia likely would have gone to war at some point due to a lack of fear concerning the opposite country’s possession of atomic bombs.

From a consequentialist point of view, I think it is permissible to use overwhelming force in war even when there is a chance of non-combatants being injured, when there seems to be no end to the war. Strategically, overwhelming force when a state has reached a weak point would likely secure the win for the country and save more lives compared to anything else. The overwhelming force would ensure that the nation does not try to fight again. Politically, I also think it is a better strategy than others because of the stark difference between defeating and surrendering. The Japanese had an ideology called the bushido which is very similar to the never back down, never give up motto. Due to this ideology, the Japanese would probably respond more negatively if they were defeated rather than surrendering knowing they lost fair and square. A defeat could cause retaliation and greater humiliation than what they face during the League of Nations conference. Relating this back to the usage of the atomic weapon in Japan, there would be two things that I would change about how they went about it. I wish there were a greater collective consensus about the usage of the atomic bomb. I feel as though the American government sugarcoated the magnitude of the weapon they dropped and painted it like it was the only option when it wasn’t. I think it was very undemocratic of the American government, and greater transparency would’ve made me feel more confident in their decision. The other thing I would change is the lack of research the Americans did on the bob and the after effects it would have on the people. It seems as though they want to use the Japanese people as their own test subject, and this irresponsibly led to the death of hundreds of Japanese people. It also led to the destruction of the land.

To sum up everything I said, due to ideology and motives, I believe that sometimes overwhelming force is permissible even if it may cause the potential harm of non-combatants. On top of that, I believe that the overwhelming force must be researched and deliberated upon for a long time before making such a hefty decision.

There are no circumstances where it is permissible to use overwhelming force in war, considering war itself is almost always preventable. The atomic bombs and use of nuclear energy in war, specifically its release on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, serves as a long lasting reminder of the irreversible damage it can leave on masses. It is an unethical tactic during war and “under the principle of humanity, U.S. forces would be justified in attacking military camps and ammunition depots, but not hospitals, schools, and other non-military targets” (Brown University). Although there may heave been some ‘strategy’ to the bombings, the deaths of innocent civilians is not justified even in wars, for it only causes unnecessary destruction to those not part of the war. The fact that the consequences of the bombs were not fully known, was even more reason as to why they should not have been used, especially in civilian areas. It is human decency, and common sense not to go the extremes of harming civilians, because that is too far, regardless of if it is strategy. Additionally, it was recorded in the Japan incident that “on August 15, Emperor Hirohito gave a radio address to the Japanese people announcing that Japan would “effect a settlement of the present situation,” accepting defeat. In hindsight, Japan’s surrender could likely have been achieved earlier, without the atomic bombings, on precisely the terms that the U.S. eventually accepted, allowing the emperor to “retain his symbolic authority under U.S. rule” (Asia Pacific Journal). Furthermore, a “2015 Pew Research Center survey finds that the share of Americans who believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified is now 56%, with 34% saying it was not. In Japan, only 14% say the bombing was justified, versus 79% who say it was not” (Pew Research). For the victims of such unethical acts, it is much more impactful and long lasting. The victim’s side refers to the the actual repercussions of large scale ruination, even more reason as to why it should never have been used, and should never happen again.

The use of overwhelming force is never necessary during war simply because it ends up doing more harm than good. In the case of the conflict between Japan and the United States, it is evident that the harm done as a result of the Tokyo bombings and use of atomic weaponry was severely disproportionate to the damage done by Japanese forces and was strategically unnecessary. Some argue that the use of the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was strategically sound, as it reduced the amount of lives lost than in a face-to-face conflict. However, this is only true for the American perspective, as our troops were not being deployed to that area of the world, and it fails to address the plight of Japanese troops and civilians who were affected by the immediate and after affects of the explosions. It also fails to address the deaths that were a result of both these bombings and the Tokyo bombings, as many civilians died as a result of the blast, and those who survived the initial blasts died from diseases that came from radiation exposure. The lack of awareness toward those who are directly affected by such excessive expressions of force highlights how nations who have the power to cause so much damage need to be humbled and focus on the true goal: saving lives. The U.S. has failed to do this throughout history, using bombs to exercise force as a means to “protect civilians,” but actually end up creating more issues for them. If there were more humane approaches that found a middle ground between absolute complacency and bombing places to ash—because there are—nations who have the power to end conflict or foster protection for those who are being targeted should seek those out to truly ensure that lives are being saved and peace is being restored.