learntoquestion ltq discussions

While overwhelming force is never “good”, so to speak, there are some instances when it becomes necessary to use. In the example of the atomic bomb, I believe that it was one of, if not the, best ways to end the war while limiting the total loss of human life. While not entirely ethical, as nothing that instantly kills thousands, slowly kills thousands, and permanently scars a city can truly be ethical, the dropping of the first bomb was fair. The United States gave Japan some warning about what was to come, with a Harper’s Magazine article reading, “In the face of this rejection we could only proceed to demonstrate that the ultimatum had meant exactly what it said when it stated that if the Japanese continued the war, ‘the full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.’” Japan likely would have understood, especially through the prior firebombing raids on Tokyo, that the United States military can and would wipe out entire cities if it meant quickening the end of the war and saving American lives.

It is easy to use retrospect to say that there were other ways the war could have been ended, but when one puts themselves into the position of an American during World War II, the choice becomes increasingly clear. Even more so, if one looks at the decision to drop the bomb from the viewpoint of Truman, whose job requires him to prioritize American lives (to an extent), one realizes that the dropping of the bomb was necessary. Japan was a nation with an extreme sense of honor, with much evidence to support their general refusal to surrender. Truman and the US intelligence agencies would have understood this, and come to the conclusion that an immediate end to the war would have to be accompanied by some human tragedy. So while no, I don’t think that dropping an atomic bomb will ever be fully ethical, I do believe that it is sometimes necessary to bring a war to an end, even if that means a large human and civilian toll. There is a right way to go about such an event, and the US, with their warning, went in the right direction, but could have gone further by encouraging civilians to leave and perhaps thinking longer about the decision to drop the second bomb.

In a perfect world the answer to this question would be “never” but unfortunately we live in a world where rich and powerful men with fragile egos and weapons of mass destruction are allowed to rule entire countries. So, my answer will be that only after a country has exhausted all other options and the other nation has displayed no sign of letting up would using overwhelming force in war be necessary and permissible. At that point, the two options for whatever leader is in charge is “My nation or their nation?”. Of course nobody wants to take innocent lives because they have nothing to do with whatever atrocities their country is committing to another but we’ve seen historically how leaders have had to make that choice for the better of their nation. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima during WWII is a very well known example of this situation. America had been trying to stay neutral in WWII because it, like many other nations, had been struggling with an economic depression and had been greatly affected by the slaughter of WWI. Multiple acts had been passed by Congress to try and maintain neutrality but as the war progressed it became harder and harder to do so. In December of 1937, years before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese sank an American gunboat that got caught in one of their attacks against China. There were casualties and injuries, and though Roosevelt initially planned on hitting back with economic sanctions, he didn’t do anything after Japan simply apologized for it. On top of that, he decided to try and handle the matter privately, most likely to try not to worry the American people. Fast forward a couple years, and the US eventually did end up placing economic sanctions on Japan. Angered by this, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, destroying a decent amount of its fleet and killing more than two thousand. Met with shock and great devastation, the US now had no choice but to get involved with the war. Japan wasn’t the only concern either- Germany and Italy had also declared war on the US. I honestly don’t really know where I stand on the matter of the US dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. I understand that it was a “last resort” but there were so many lives lost that it feels wrong to say that it was justified. I can guess what would’ve happened if it hadn’t happened and I understand that there probably would’ve been more bloodshed caused by Japan if they hadn't been forced to surrender. However, the entire situation was really messy and I don’t think there’s one clear answer to this question of whether or not it was the right choice to drop the bomb.

Overwhelming force in war is only necessary when every other option has failed, and the alternative is prolonged destruction and suffering. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific, but they ultimately ended the war, though it is unfair to speculate if they saved more lives than they took. Japan had every chance to surrender, yet they refused even after relentless firebombing and the first atomic bomb. It took two bombs to make them surrender—if they had truly been looking for a way to surrender, their government should have done so after the first bomb..

I don’t believe the bombings were morally justified, but they were strategically necessary. Japan had mobilized nearly a million soldiers and thousands of kamikaze fighters to resist an invasion. The cost of a ground war would have been devastating for both sides, possibly killing far more people—American and Japanese—than the bombs did.

There are some circumstances in which it is necessary to use overwhelming force in war, but even when it may be necessary, it should never be permissible. If your opponent in a war is, for example, committing atrocities against other people and the only way you could possibly stop them is to use overwhelming force yourself, I think you should take those steps to bring an end to the suffering, even if it may cause some along the way. However, it should not be acceptable for you to do so just because your opponent is. If we allowed countries to violate the rules of war whenever their enemies did, it would significantly weaken these rules. It would send a message to countries that, while some things are technically not allowed, no one’s really going to do anything to try to stop you from doing them or punish you if you do. By making an effort to uphold the rules of war, even when some may break them, it demonstrates that what those countries are doing is wrong and it deters others from following a similar course. It is better to have rules in place that are sometimes broken than to not have any rules at all.

We should always strive to find peaceful solutions to our problems. While diplomacy can be time consuming or frustrating, it is almost always a better option than war. Except for in extreme circumstances, finding diplomatic solutions to disagreements saves countless lives that would have been lost if the countries had gone to war instead. That said, sometimes countries do terrible things and do not want to negotiate, and so war is the only way to stop them.

I would love to be able to say that diplomacy is always the answer—and in an ideal world, I would—but given that we do not live in an ideal world, I have to admit that war is sometimes necessary. Some groups just outright do terrible things and in order to save lives, they need to be decisively defeated. However, the fact that war is sometimes necessary does not make it a good thing. Countries should still always try diplomacy first, only going to war as a last resort. While some wars may ultimately save lives, they cost them at the same time. In the end, it comes down to the question: whose lives matter more? Who is worth saving?

After the dinner table discussion, I admit I still feel uncertain about whether there are any times that the use of overwhelming force is ever necessary or permissible. I feel this way due to the fact that there were many factors contributing to the decision made regarding the bombing and how many, including President Eisenhower, argued that the bombing of Japan was not necessary, with some suggesting that the “president’s main motivation was to send a message to Moscow and thwart Soviet influence in Asia and elsewhere.” However, during the dinner table discussion many suggested some reasons that the bombing could have been necessary – like the lack of willingness for the Japanese people to surrender, the possibility of more people dying in the other options to get Japan to surrender, with a blockade causing famine in Japan and a ground invasion killing many American and Japanese people. Many, especially in the United States, found the bombing justified then – likely because the American people were exhausted from this war and wanted it to be over. Another argument made was that the demonstration of the effect of the atomic bomb prevented its further use.

In my opinion, it is unnecessary to debate whether what was done was justified – because it happened, and its effects are still felt to this day. Many survivors are still alive today and experience things like a higher risk of developing cancer, permanent scars. The survivors that day lost almost everyone in their family. Whether or not one thinks it is justified, the United States can never grow as a nation if we do not acknowledge the crimes that we, as a country, did commit in the past. I do think that we still should apologize, whether or not it prevented the loss of further life, because these effects are still felt towards people who were innocent, including young children.

I think there is only really one situation in which it is ok to use overwhelming force in war. That situation is when the enemy is not using ethical tactics, there is basically no chance of them surrendering or being defeated otherwise, and if they themselves are harming civilians. While I truly believe that we should absolutely try our best to be ethical and to especially not harm civilians and non-combatants, in extreme circumstances if that is the outcome, while it is not ok, it will serve its purpose. And while I know it would be better if both parties remained ethical and moral, I know realistically it is not possible. There are some groups or nations that will continue to take things too far and I think we need to recognize that sometimes swift, decisive action is the best way to stop them even if it means being a little amoral. I’m not saying that we should go all out, but if some extra force is necessary, then it’s fine to use it. The whole point is to ultimately end the war and save lives and if excessive force does that, then it is ok to use it, but only if the enemy is also using excessive force. Take the atomic bomb; I think the bomb itself was not the right way to deal with Japan, however I do believe a similar force would have been necessary. It didn’t look like Japan was going to surrender soon and they were extremely brutal. I think the bomb was one of the few ways to actually get them to stop. The atomic bomb itself though, is a completely different matter. We used the atomic bomb as essentially a science experiment and to prove to the Soviets that we had the power to stop them if needed. The devastation that the radiation poisoning was so severe and horrible that the overall destruction was much worse. If we had used other tactics, maybe different types of weapons that didn’t cause such long-lasting, horrible effects on so many ordinary civilians, then it would have been better, but I’m not totally sure that would have been possible given the nature of the situation.

When an atom bomb detonates, the first thing you see is light. Within milliseconds, thousands of people at or near ground zero are vaporized, becoming nothing but shadows on the pavement. The shockwave follows, speeding hundreds of kilometers per hour, killing countless more from collapsing infrastructure. The thermal radiation creates a raging firestorm, and a cloud of ash blocks out the sun, creating a vision of hell on Earth—a god’s wrath at the hands of man.

Was this ethical? What a silly question. No, obviously not. And if it was, ethics have failed us. We know this now. We can look back at the horrific death toll and the long-term consequences of the atomic bomb and condemn those who supported its use. But in 1945, the American populus would disagree. The bombers who flew away after its detonation felt “only relief” that finally, “it was over” (Hiroshima Documentary).

To Americans at the time, the Hiroshima bomb did exactly what it was designed to do—it stopped the long and brutal war that had taken their fathers, brothers, and sons. It put an end to the “vicious and heartless…vermin” that were the Japanese: those who had treated Allied war prisoners “mercilessly” through torture and atrocities like the Bataan Death March (Brown University). In all forms of media, propaganda dehumanizing and villainizing the Japanese stirred a deep hatred “never before” seen “in U.S. history” (Brown University). Polling in that year reported that “85% of Americans approved of using the new atomic weapon” (Pew Research Center). President Truman, who ultimately gave the executive order, might not have as much choice as we accuse him of. Had he held off on the brutal but efficient end to the war, he would have been “crucified by the American people” (NPR).

Now, American citizens weren’t exactly given all the facts either. On top of the government-issued propaganda demonizing the enemy (as is common in warfare), the full details of the bomb’s true destruction were withheld. Americans “knew…that they were dealing with something…unprecedented,” but the fact that “this bomb had radiological qualities and that…even blast survivors…would die in an agonizing way…was not stated” (NPR). The atomic bomb, compared by President Truman to “20,000 tons of TNT” seemed destructive, but not enough to matter (NPR).

This immorality is exactly what makes war so terrible. In a world war, it’s every country for itself. It was the duty of the American government to put their citizens’ lives first, both in the current war and all impending ones. The issue is the scale to which that phenomenon has been expanded. Our tribal warfare has expanded a thousandfold, its effects felt across the world. Our weapons have turned from swords to the destructive power of a god. It is not a question of whether or not atomic bombs are ‘ethical,’ but whether or not that will matter to us in the end.

In total war, all people from the involved nations are enlisted to some degree into the war effort. In this case, total war is a complete mobilization of people to fight an enemy. This can quickly turn from a patriotic unification to an ultra-nationalist movement, which manifests itself in excusable crimes in war. The limitations to power in war are there for those who respect the moral boundaries, largely created by the West, yet this doesn’t include the beliefs of many other nations involved. In the case of World War II, the Japanese were largely excluded from negotiations during the Treaty of Versailles and weren’t involved in the formation of policies for protection of non-combatants in war. This in turn led to the brutal militaristic approach of the Japanese during World War II. However, this to no degree excuses their decision to act against non-combatants in crimes of rape, mutilation, mass murder, and sexual enslavement. These lines were crossed by the Japanese military, leading to an extreme response from the United States in the form of the atomic bomb. While many politicians claimed the absolute necessity for this war act, many U.S. military officials opposed the use of the bomb because they viewed it as an extreme solution to something that could be solved with diplomacy. The motivations of the United States are blurred, and act as an important question into the permissibility of using unethical tactics in war to combat other immoral acts committed by the opposing side. That being said, nations should be obligated to act in morally guided actions during war, however, the idea of a “moral high ground” of one nation to another, is problematic in defining the limits within war. The moral high ground suggests a righteousness based on moral standards created by those in power, and particularly in history, Western countries. In order to prevent these situations of war and global conflict from occurring, inclusion and representation of all voices is necessary to establish tangible and moral rules of war that tailor to the differences in cultural belief systems. Unfortunately, the possibility of global peace seems far from any sort of upcoming reality, so to think about this in a realistic lens, the immoral and extreme measures taken in war should solely act to protect the people of their nation rather than seek revenge or experimentation by wreaking havoc on other nations. In light of the atomic bomb, some evils may be necessary. While the atomic bomb was disastrous, it provided a post-war era that was braced against violence. In the 45 year Cold War, no direct military actions were taken against Russia by the United States, indicating a moral lesson learned by the U.S.. Moreover, the lack of use of atomic weapons during the Cold War in spite of the arms race indicates an international apprehension of global destruction. The issue is that humans are prone to forgetfulness, and the patterns of history tend to repeat. The way to take this issue is to look ahead, but never forget to force individuals, governments, and societies to look back and learn from the past.

I do not think the problem of atomic weapons can be solved in a simple, straightforward manner. There are strong, passionate arguments and viewpoints on both sides of the controversy surrounding their use, and the discussions' conclusions are frequently very circumstantial. Today's culture is still marked by the long lasting scars caused by atomic explosions, especially the one that destroyed Hiroshima. Although the bomb's explosive detonation killed many individuals right away, radiation exposure caused long term agony for many survivors. Numerous fatalities resulted from this aftereffect in the years that followed, both from the original explosion and from the radiation related diseases that grew over time.

Going off the principals of what we previously learned (Jus ad bello, etc) I feel that it is necessary and permissible to use overwhelming force in war when the other side may do it first, and if it will keep one’s country safe, even if it means the intentional harm of non-combatants. However, the overwhelming force in question can not be as strong as an atomic bomb. The atomic bomb harms absolutely everyone, for generations to come. To me, this is more than “harm of non-combatants,” which happens in every war. This harms every person within miles of the blast. This can not be justified in any form, even considering the context and how high the stakes were at the time. An offensive strategy that poisons those it does not kill is inhumane.

Yes, some nations or groups need to be humbled decisively in order to stop hostilities and ultimately save lives. However, this was not humbling. Japan would have likely still surrendered within due time with or without the use of atomic weapons. Even the American powers were wary of the overwhelming force of the bomb, as “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” (Asia Pacific Journal). The use of nuclear weapons is a power too strong for humankind, and puts us all in danger. The global deadlock we find ourselves in is unstable, and given that nuclear weapons were designed to be stronger than the current weapons at the time, I am scared to think about a country doing the same thing and producing a weapon stronger than a nuke.

In my opinion, the use of the atomic bomb and that extreme use of force is never acceptable. The Hiroshima bomb killed hundreds of thousands of people on impact, and killed hundreds of thousands more from radiation sickness, cancer, and other related diseases. I also think that the use of the atomic bomb could have been avoided while still bringing an end to the war. Atomic scientist Leo Szilard, reporting on his meeting with Byrnes on May 28, 1945 said that Byrnes “did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war”, and said “our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe.”(Asia Pacific Journal). This proves that the use of the atomic bomb was not actually necessary to save lives, but rather to maintain American hegemony around the globe.