learntoquestion ltq discussions

The use of overwhelming force in war, especially where it involves the deliberate causing of injury to innocent people, is a serious moral issue. While some would argue that the use of force would be justifiable as long as it ends the war immediately and ultimately will save lives, the moral issue trumps that claim. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in World War II is widely cited as an instance of this problem. The bombings were justified by the U.S. on the basis that it would bring the war to an earlier end and kill fewer people than a protracted war, in other words, an invasion of Japan. Here, the huge civilian deaths and long-term suffering caused by the bombings have prompted many to wonder if the ends justifies the means. In addition, the international norm of immunity of non-combatants, i.e., the protection of civilians against direct attack, was obviously violated under such bombing missions, and so the ethical argument is increasingly difficult to defend. In modern war, whether or ever there will be a need to use, or justify, disproportionate force, more especially in humanitarian intervention or unconventional warfare, remains a matter before our minds in which the necessity of ending anguish must be weighed against putting innocents at risk. Other people would argue that a heavy and final strike can make belligerent states or groups yield and refrain from committing future aggressions, but in doing so could plant hatred and revenge in the future and render lasting peace harder to obtain. Lastly, if overwhelming at times is unavoidable, it must still be subjected to intense scrutiny on ethical standards of proportionality and necessity so as not to exacerbate the evils from which it desires to protect people.

I do not think it is ever necessary to use overwhelming force such as nuclear weapons in warfare. Using a weapon that was described as being as strong as “The force from which the sun draws its powers has been lost against those who brought war to the Far East” is not ethical practice and leads to the harm of non combatants. During WWII members of President Truman’s war council and advisors believed that the atomic bomb was morally indefensible. In his memoir, Truman's Military chief advisor Admiral Leahy writes, “The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.” Though the “death-cult” in south east Asia that was solely focused on Pan-Asian had become violent and obbsed with their mission, Japan had no allies and had a crippled navy towards the end of the war blockades prevented proper food and economic activity from entering the country. Although many in Japan felt immense nationalism for their country and would rather die than surrender, Japan’s national decision-making was made by Japan’s War Council, which was made up of a six-person decision-making body chosen by the emperor. This body prevented any peace agreements and wanted to preserve the emperor system. It was becuase of this lack of negotiations that the bombs were released to quickly end the war, punishing Japanese civilians for their inability to act diplomatically. Furthermore, a military advisor General MacArthur believed that crippled Japan would have surrendered by May of 1945 if not for the “unconditional surrender”. I also believe it is unethical to punish civilians for the actions of others. There may have been civilian casualties who were not violent against other races and were rather murdered for the belief of their nation. I also bneleive that the use of atomic weapons in modern conflicts results in horrible death for civilians and harms the morale of a city and nation for decades that follow. Ending conflicts in almost an instant sets a precedent for war that creates an idea that conflict can be ended by whoever has the bigger bomb and more firepower. The idea of trying to have the best weapon, forces nations to always try to one up other creating a world where countries are constantly working on weapons to destroy one another.

I would like to believe that there are no circumstances that should permit the use of overwhelming force in a war, but as a citizen that has never served, I know that I can never fully understand the pressure of making that kind of decision. I do still believe however, that making a decision like that should be the absolute last resort.

Looking at the U.S situation with Japan and the decision to bomb them, I can see the reasons behind it, but I also do believe that they did not do everything in their power to find another way to get them to surrender. For starters, they did not do as much testing as possible for the atomic bomb they were going to drop. Their rationale for this was that “nothing would have been more damaging to our effort to obtain surrender than a warning or a demonstration followed by a dud—and this was a real possibility. Furthermore, we had no bombs to waste. It was vital that a sufficient effect be quickly obtained with the few we had.…” Again, as a citizen I don't truly know what is going on inside the mind of someone in that position to make that decision, but I still believe that this is not a good enough reason to not test that weapon, just because there is a possibility that it wont work when fired. Especially since it was an atomic bomb, which was never used before and the weapon had the most radiation a weapon had before, not taking into account the effects after it hit. The U.S also blames ignorance about the effects after but that also should not be a reason because the U.S would have known it did that if they tested it properly. But also, at that time Japan as a whole were doing very harsh things during the war so that added on to the U.S need to stop them.

In the context of war, specifically World War II, there are instances where using overwhelming force is justified. The USA's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the prime example of this. In early stages of war, Japanese imperial military strategies were extremely cruel and directly violated war laws. Invading China, torturing prisoners of war, and the Rape of Nanking were evidence that the Japenese had no intention to stop their expansion or listen to any other country. They demonstrated an unwavering resolve to continue fighting through their mantra "death before surrender," proving that there was no surrender in the near future. Even though they suffered significant loss, this was not enough and they continued to perform crimes against humanity. Because of this, the use of the Atomic Bomb by the USA, although not moral, was justified and necessary to break Japan's will and end the war as quickly as possible.

Even through extreme pushback and failure, Japan implemented a more traditional military approach that would result in an even higher death toll. The American atomic bombing, while tragic, was a calculated effort that forced Japan’s surrender and avoided prolonged suffering from all nations involved in WWII. The Pearl Harbor attacks clearly illustrated Japanese violence and the intent to relentlessly wage war on everyone, even uninvolved regions. The killing of 2,400+ American soldiers was purely violent and aggressive. The bombings could be viewed as revenge or “overkill” (because there were two bombs of insane power), however, they served as a decisive action to end the war swiftly, leaving no chance for Japan to retaliate.

There is no denying that the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were killed in the most brutal and careless manner possible. While this is tragic, we see direct, undeniable proof that these victims and the America’s bombs on Japan

The use of overwhelming force in war, particularly when it harms non-combatants is rarely permissible and necessary. However, nations have used extreme measures under the justification of ending conflicts swiftly. It should only be used when another country is already using an extreme amount of force and in order to prevent further casualties, the country should defend themselves with the same amount of force back. However, the problem is that an overwhelming amount of force should never be used to begin with. Just War Theory emphasizes proportionality and distinction, meaning that military action should target combat and minimize harm to civilians. Any measure that violates this is unethical, making it impermissible. An example of ethical principles being violated is the dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan. As Harper’s Magazine notes, “...Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary” as it disproportionately harmed citizens who weren't the target. The use of overwhelming force was not a military necessity but an excessive show of power. The negative health effects from radiation, displacement and mass death could have been avoided if alternate methods were used. When immense suffering is inflicted upon innocent people with no say, overwhelming force should never be inflicted. Though I understand the rationale behind dropping the bomb, the amount of lives lost cannot be justified. War in general should never be waged for revenge and civilians should never be harmed as a form of punishment. Politics also has no place when people's lives are at risk, as the devastating use of the atomic bomb was a political decision as stated, ““‘everyone was so intent on winning the war by military means that the introduction of political considerations was almost accidental’” (APJ). This highlights how military leaders often prioritize dominance over diplomacy, leading to unnecessary civilian suffering.War should aim to secure peace, not destruction. Therefore, humbling a nation through destruction isn't constructive in the long run as it leads to long-term resentment and instability. Violence deepens divisions instead of resolving them. A true conflict resolution should address the root causes of the dilemma and should take humanity into consideration, an ethical approach that minimizes harm is key. More lives are lost in the name of ending conflict with excessive force not only physically but mentally. The remaining survivors are scarred for life which is why it shouldn't be up to any country to humble another.

When we were contemplating the ethics behind the use of the atomic bomb, I thought about it as if it were my family and city that was bombed, and I can’t find any way to justify the harm of non-combatants in war. Non-soldiers are always harmed by war; according to Amnesty International, “In 2021, more than 19,000 children were either recruited as child soldiers; killed or maimed; subjected to sexual violence; or abducted in armed conflicts.” In my opinion, there is no way to argue that bombing a city of people is worth it in order to prevent future violence. If, hypothetically, another country decided that they needed to bomb Boston in order to prevent American violence towards their people, would we agree because the circumstances justified it?

The distinction between who is and is not a combatant in war is often debated. There are arguments that “everyone was a combatant” in Japan because households were given weapons by their government, but what about children? Elderly people? In fact, the idea that weapons were distributed to Japanese families is a myth. Although I don’t know that much about the strategic necessity of different types of warfare, it is not unnatural to say that the atomic bomb was excessive. The military leaders at the time even regretted the use of the atomic bomb—seven out of eight of the top military commanders at the time believed that it was unnecessary to use the bomb from a military-strategic vantage point because their bombers were already destroying Japanese cities.

In addition to the atomic bomb’s lack of necessity, the priority of the U.S. government may not have been solely to protect the American people. Some military leaders of the time believed that Japan was in no state to continue the war when they were bombed. Because of the Japanese value of dying in the fight rather than surrendering, it was thought that they were trying to find a way to surrender while still saving face. In addition, in Henry Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” he states, “I therefore emphasize that it was our common objective, throughout the war, to be the first to produce an atomic weapon and use it” as well as that “The exact circumstances in which that weapon might be used were unknown to any of us until the middle of 1945.” This directly asserts that the U.S.’s desire to use the bomb outweighed the possibility that Japan would surrender without its use, and that the bomb was used to intimidate other nations. However, it is projected that the war would continue for a while longer if the bomb was not used.

In any way, as a pacifist, I cannot agree with causing the torture and cruel deaths of so many people, young and old, soldiers and not. To me, and, in a way, to “realists” like Benjamin Berell Ferencz, killing each others’ children and parents in order to gain land or power is a primitive and barbaric method of solving disputes. I believe that a better and more humanitarian society won’t need to discuss which systems of murder are necessary because we will refuse to accept the idea that war is an inherent and inevitable aspect of life.

In a world where violence and morality could be looked at through a black and white lens, the ethicality of dropping an atomic bomb on civilians would be seen as unethical and morally wrong to a fault. However, situational wise in where the knowledge of mobilized troops and civilians who would in large numbers rather die fighting for the honor of their country than surrender, then overwhelming force would be needed to have them to forfeit. There are arguments that overwhelming force can sometimes be necessary to bring an enemy to a swift conclusion, avoiding a longer, more destructive war. The idea behind such reasoning is that the shock of such decisive force might be the only way to make a belligerent nation surrender, thereby saving more lives in the long run. In the context of World War II itself, Japan's refusal to surrender—despite facing severe losses—meant that a conventional invasion would result in even more death and destruction. As President Harry S. Truman famously noted, the bombings were necessary to avoid "the greatest invasion the world has ever known" and to force Japan to surrender quickly, thus potentially saving more lives in the long term. Where use of overwhelming force in war, particularly the intentional harm of non-combatants, raises profound ethical and philosophical questions. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II provide a concrete example of these issues. From one perspective, the use of such devastating force is deeply unethical, as it directly targets civilian populations and causes suffering that lingers long after the conflict ends. Yet, from another standpoint, overwhelming force is justified as a necessary evil when the aim is to bring an end to hostilities and prevent even greater loss of life in the future. The morality aspect of overwhelming force, especially with a weapon of mass destruction so great that the after effects are still felt to this day through radiation seeping into the area and people are very finicky in itself.

I believe that it is necessary to use overwhelming forces when nations continue to battle without regard to the health of their citizens, aimlessly continuing to battle for a slim chance at victory. The warring nation is allowing their people to continue to suffer while also putting the lives of others at risk. They are also usually unwilling to take responsibility for the tragedies that they bring to the places they are targeting. For example, with the use of atomic bombs, the Japanese were forced to finally stand down and consider other options to refrain from the continuing of warfare. The Japanese may have thought of giving up the battle, but many passionate nationalists pushed a different agenda and the United States could not take any chances of them retaliating. In the article titled “Was There A Diplomatic Alternative? The Atomic Bombing and Japan’s Surrender,” there was a quote regarding the various emotions that American soldiers endured around the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. An officer by the name of William Leahy argued that the United States should not have dropped the atomic bombs as Japan was seemingly about to surrender. However, it is evident to note how much propaganda played into the beliefs of citizens on both sides, each considering the other an unwavering. Many people were not educated about the damage that the bombs would cause nor did they truly intend to cause so much terror to the innocent citizens there. It is imminent that some nations are humbled during war because they are unable to truly admit when they are in the wrong and become desperate to prove their point over valuing the lives of citizens. Officer Leahy highlights how Japan was going to stand down, but the information that was spread gave the impression that the battle was going to continue. If the tables were turned, would Japan trust that the United States is backing down? It is very likely that they would not.

Throughout human history, war and conquest have persisted as a constant acceptable tool for progression. From the very beginning, we have killed each other for various reasons, and as we have progressed, we have only gotten better at it. However, our morals still exist, we are not mindless killers, and we only do what we deem to be fair and just. But then that begs the question, what happens when a nation does actions that are morally reprehensible, but believe them to be acceptable? If humanity had an easy answer to this question, our history would be a lot different and streamline, however I believe that maintaining morality in war is still something which should be strived for, albeit difficult. I understand that my world view is different from that of someone who has been in war, and I may disagree if I were to be placed in such conditions, but I still believe we should never bring ourselves down to the level of the enemy, as we would become hypocrites. You cannot strive for justice and morality, by using force equal to or greater than that which your enemy does. If you were to use overwhelming force to stop an enemy, such as the nuclear weapons used on Japan, war simply becomes hypocritical. I acknowledge that this is simply the nature of the beast, however attempting to bring any morality into a discussion about war I cannot agree with. I believe that war as a whole should be avoided, and if possible, should reduce the amounts of casualties. For the case of Japan in WW2, the nuclear weapons did not have to be used, as surrender was already on the horizon for Japan. The only reason that Japan had not surrendered already, was because they did not want the emperor to be deposed, which he ultimately was not. It was also beneficial to the allies to keep the emperor as a puppet as well, in order to more effectively sway the Japanese into their control. 7 out of the 8 top officers in the US army believed the bomb was not necessary, and Japanese officials were already ready to surrender. I ultimately do not believe in the use of overwhelming force to stop an enemy, especially when it has a multitude of civilian casualties, and for the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the second World War, I believe it was purely unnecessary.