learntoquestion ltq discussions

I think instances where it is necessary to win the war and save lives is when overwhelming force in war is permissible even if it harms citizens of another country. I believe weapons like these should only be used as a method of self defense. In no case should a nation ever start off a war just by simply bombing an enemy city to me that’s evil and cruel. However in the instances where you are attacked first and can’t fight back without it I believe that it makes more sense to take drastic measures than to simply send your soldiers to their inevitable deaths. Especially in cases where the attacking nation is murdering innocent citizens as well. In my opinion I feel that by using a dangerous weapon like an atomic bomb to save thousands of soldiers and civilians lives from being wasted is a moral cause. These aren’t just pieces on a chess board, these are human beings with families and friends whose deaths will have negative impacts on others.

I believe that some nations need to be humbled decisively and swiftly because some cultures are very patriotic an once they have their minds set on a goal they will put their lives on the line to complete it. Japan for example, their culture is to never give up and to die in battle. Sending in troops to fight them would do nothing but create an environment of death and suffering for everybody. The deaths of peoples friends and families will ripple all throughout each country, and create another wave of depression that will affect future generations. I wholeheartedly believe that preventing a reality where more people die by dragging out the war is the best solution to ending a war.

The goals of a nation at war are ultimately to win with the lowest cost to themselves. This will always come second to the protection of enemy civilians, regardless of the morality of that focus. While, or perhaps because, I cannot argue that any aspect of war can be moral, I only see a fine distinction between ethical and unethical warfare. When considering international law, the boundaries between what is acceptable and not is subjective and quite dependent on the propaganda a power uses to justify their actions. When considering Japan’s conduct during WWII, “Secretary of State Cordell Hull expressed American anger when he asserted that “no theory of war can justify such conduct”” (Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies). This was justified to an extent because of the brutality that Japan used against the people they conquered, however the US’ response was just as brutal and unjustified by any previous war theory. While the killing of civilians is never ethical, in retaliation there is justification that can be used if the response is truly proportional. The distinction also lies in the strength imbalance between two fighting powers; if a power is much stronger than the enemy committing war crimes, then there is much less justification for that power to respond with illegal behavior even if it is proportional. Given the wording of the treaties that dictate legal behavior in war, if a state sees an opportunity to end a war through unethical means, if the ends are justifiable through the means, that can be argued as legal. I do believe that any state should face the responsibility of rebuilding in the aftermath of winning a conflict in which they committed war-crimes. In the case of the United States after the two atomic bombings, they faced no repercussions because of the strength and power the US has over the rest of the world and UN. This was unjust, not simply because of the lack of necessity of such an act, but also because of the incredible damage the bombs caused. Overall I don’t feel like I can appropriately comment on the ethics of retaliation both because of its individualized circumstances and my belief that there is no way to retaliate ethically, especially if citizens are involved. Total-warfare is horrible no matter the context, but sometimes as a response it can make sense.

As horrible as it may be, I believe that the atomic bomb used by the US on Hiroshima was justified. However, that is not to say that we should not look at the ethical and moral dilemmas that atomic and nuclear warfare present.

I do not believe that the US handled the dropping of the bomb on Japan particularly well. The bomb was not tested well enough and we did not study the effects that dropping the bomb held on people.

However, the justification of the bomb – to me– is because of this: Japan had committed numerous war crimes that, before the bomb had been dropped, had gone unpunished. The bomb served to avenge the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were sexually assaulted and killed.

Additionally, the bomb, counterintuitively, presented a less violent alternative. The alternative would have been a full scale invasion of Japan, which would likely have resulted in millions of deaths on each side, especially given the fact that Japanese soldiers were trained to die rather than betray their country at any costs.

The location of Hiroshima proves both a good and bad location for the bomb. It was bad because, obviously, it was a very large city with a huge population center. The American government knew the size of the area affected by the bomb, and choosing Hiroshima shows very little regard for human life and the life of Japanese civilians. However, Hiroshima was also a military base– dropping the bomb there showed a level of ruthlessness while also being strategic, and showing that a major goal of theirs was to halt the Japanese military. Additionally, Hiroshima was a large city–large enough that the Japanese were worried that we would come after Tokyo next if there was no surrender. However, I should note that I hope the US would never go after Tokyo, as that would be unproportional and evil. If the justification that Hiroshima was a military base goes through, there would be no excuse to bomb Tokyo.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that Japan needed to be stopped with immediate effect. Unfortunately, the only way to do that was to scare them, and the bomb was, realistically, the only way to do that. I hope we never come to a period again where diplomacy is not an option and the world falls into such lawlessness as it did. Atomic weapons should be used again, given the fact that so many countries have them, and I hope that they never have to be used again.

The use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and nagasaki was a devastating, yet necessary action to end the war. The aftermath is visible to this day and it has caused immense suffering, but I think it was the best course of action to prevent further and greater loss of human lives. Japan refused to surrender and the war had already caused horrendous casualties, and ultimately it was made clear that this conflict wouldn’t end without overwhelming force. But as stated earlier, the bombings raised serious ethical and moral concerns. Under Jus ad Bellum, the bomb was justified, as Japan was already warned by the US and given a chance to surrender, but Japan’s leadership remained committed to continuing the war. An alternative option was an invasion of Japan, but that would have resulted in catastrophic losses on both sides. As an article noted, “Instead of invading Japan, U.S. forces more likely would have starved the Japanese people. Gen. Carl Spaatz’s new plan to replace “burn jobs” with precision bombing was aimed at Japan’s railroad network carrying rice to the Kanto Plain around Tokyo, where much of the Japanese population lived.” But, Jus in Bello complicates this decision. The bombs targeted two cities and large populations, raising the question of discrimination and proportionality. Many can argue that the atomic bomb was a violation of these principles as it targeted over 100,000 civilians, and did not distinguish between innocent people and soldiers. Additionally, the radiation from the bombs has caused serious health implications the years following the end of the war.

That being said, I think overwhelming force is sometimes necessary to bring an end to a brutal conflict. Without the bombings, the war could have continued for years, leading to even greater destruction. As Henry Stimson, former Secretary of State, stated, “The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an end to the Japanese war. It stopped the fire raids, and the strangling blockade; it ended the ghastly specter of a clash of great land armies.” It is also important to note that the use of atomic weapons also demonstrated the scale of destruction and power of nuclear warfare, which led to an arms race that still threatens security. I firmly believe that war should be a last resort, and the suffering of Hiroshima and Nagasaki serves as a reminder as to why diplomatic solutions should be prioritized over military actions.

“Was the use of the atomic bomb inhuman? All war is inhuman.” --- Karl T. Compton, The Atlantic

What actions in war can you justify, if any? The use of the atomic bomb is just one example of mass destruction, however it's important to look at the effects that it had on society. In an instant, thousands were killed, and those that did not perish instantly suffered an extremely painful death from acute radiation syndrome. Even survivors are impacted with sicknesses from the radiation, and studies have found that these people have a much higher rate of cancers, especially lymphomas. The use of this bomb was in no way ethical, and in some ways, not even justifiable.

The atomic bomb brought World War II to an official end, yet shook foundations of this society. It killed thousands of people, but it also brought an easily destructive device into this world. While I believe that no bombs should have been dropped at all, if the U.S. had only dropped one, history could have looked a lot different. Those in charge of the bombings gave almost no time for the citizens to recover from Hiroshima, dropping another one on Nagasaki only 2 days later. Not only that, but on August 9th, the day of the second bombing, the pilots changed locations as to where they would drop this bomb. This quick change gave no time for these other citizens to prepare, leaving them in the dark as to what was going to happen. While I believe that this event should not have occurred, it’s important to remember the privilege we have to even discuss this topic. I am 100% against these weapons, and believe there is no scenario that it should be used. However now, this country is not under the threat of war, which is why over 85% of people in the U.S. approved of the bombing almost immediately after. To these people, it meant the end of further destruction, and a chance to build a life. Instead of keeping these conversations in the dark, we must learn to discuss them. The atomic bomb did not make the world safer, but neither will dancing around the issue. By acknowledging the destruction they can cause, we can look forward as to how this technology can be stopped, and how we as a collective whole can move to advocate for more peace instead of war.

I believe it is not necessary and permissible to use overwhelming force in war under certain circumstances, as it is an issue which harms a lot of people. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaska during World War II killed thousands of civilians, even innocent ones and caused so many to suffer. There are arguments which say that it may bring an end to the war by saving more lives, therefore it was to humble Japan. I think it is not permissible in the case that you are killing so many innocent civilians for no reason but for the sake of your own gain, and to bring your country up, in this case I do not think it is okay. However, I understand the bombing which was placed on Japan and the reason that the U.S did it is because of the many crimes Japan committed, and thousands of victims who were sexually assaulted. I understand that placing a bomb on an area instead of sending multiple soldiers could have helped them in the long run since people would have died either way. I think there should be a period of negotiation before countries go to battle, so that so many innocent lives can be saved. According to Just War theory, “it talks about the justifications of where you can go to war”, which ultimately shows that you should not target civilians on purpose with no means to. Ultimately though, I do realize that the bombing of and destruction of Hiroshima and Nagaski did give a clear message to Japan even though it killed so many people. It officially did end the Japanese war, but shows how powerful these weapons are. It’s sad to hear the amount of lives lost because of these wars and bombing, but I think that war and violence should be the last resort and negotiation should happen first.

It is never permissible to use overwhelming force with the intention of harming mass numbers of non-combatants, but it is sometimes strategically the easiest way to end an existing conflict quickly. Ethically speaking, there is always a better solution that will harm the least number of people possible, but in many scenarios it isn’t feasible to work through all these solutions while people are still suffering. Additionally, when a nation is deciding on whether or not they should use the force at their disposal, the lives of enemy civilians are of less importance than the cost on their own end. I think it’s similar to how we view morality in real life scenarios from person to person, where you might be adamantly opposed to enacting violence, but will likely go back on this opposition when it is to save yourself or someone else. Essentially, desperate times call for desperate measures. On the other hand, when looking at the example of the dropping of the atomic bomb, it’s debatable whether or not this philosophy can be applied. Only under very specific circumstances, in which there is absolutely no chance of surrender and the opposing force is enacting objective atrocities, would force of this magnitude be reasonable, and it isn’t clear whether these conditions were the case for Japan. It is very possible that the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved more lives than they took, but the majority of the lives that they took had no personal part in the actual conflict themselves. “...there was a Japanese military base in Hiroshima. It was a staging area for Southeast Asia and an important one. But there was also a city of 300,000 people, and the bomb was aimed at the center of the city. It was targeted on civilians, and it was meant to destroy the city.” (NPR) In this case, there is no argument on the purpose of the bomb, and whether or not it was strategic should come second to the intent of civilian destruction and death. Although soldier casualties may still be staggering, there is at least some element of choice when one is fighting for their country, as opposed to just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Another important factor to take into account is how much force each nation has at its disposal, as it is significantly less ethical for a nation to use immense force when their opposition does not have access to comparable resources. Ultimately, acts of war, especially those intended to harm non-combatants, are never moral or completely necessary, but can serve as a method of ending a conflict faster than it would have ended otherwise.

It is necessary to use overwhelming force in certain circumstances, but in most cases it is not acceptable. With the atomic bomb, the damages were immense, and we should know better going into the future than to ever use it again unprompted. It’s necessary that we protect as many civilian lives as possible, and the use of atomic weapons is unconcentrated—in WWII, strategists claimed they wanted to target industrial centers, but this could easily have been achieved through the use of normal bomb when a factory was closed to avoid any loss of civilian life. Instead, the use of these weapons causes unimaginable damage to a country’s population, psyche, and cultural heritage.

However, if an atomic attack is made by another country on the United States, it would be necessary to return the attack. It is not always possible to take the moral high road in war, and while this is generally an admirable pursuit, it is more of an ideal than a reality. We need to allow for all other options to be exhausted first. But, when we are under attack by atomic bombs, there is nothing that we can do militarily to cease the barrage besides returning an attack of our own; there is nothing more severe. At this point in a conflict, it is no longer ethical to spare civilian lives of the aggressor country, because we would actively be sacrificing American lives through the pursuit of morality. This creates a paradox, as it is inherently immoral to be responsible for the deaths of thousands, but this is the result of either course of action: either we are directly responsible through a retaliation, or indirectly through complacency. But who do we decide to sacrifice—surely not our own people who the government has sworn to protect?

This becomes the inherent problem with war; it is inherently immoral. It is not possible to fight an ethical war, and as long as boundaries are drawn defining countries and we perpetuate our obsession with hoarding resources, war will never end.