Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 11
Reflections of the Ethnics of the Atomic Bomb
Throughout the most tragic historical events, it can not be answered with a simple yes or no on whether it was justified, but we can at least look at the facts which are crucial to the understanding. Divining deeper into the events that took place on August 9, 1945 - The drop of two atomic bombs on the cities of Japan, operated by the United States. The goal of this attack was to bring an end to World War II by bringing Japan to a state of surrender, though the usage of the deadly weapons was what they believed “, Stimson wrote, was “the least abhorrent choice” (Foreign Policy). I believe that in the circumstances of the U.S - facing serious attack - it is right to do what is necessary to protect one’s nation. Though, the bomb dropping on Hiroshima had caused a major wave of radiation that wiped out not only the people, but the entire village structure. This event didn’t have a short lived result, the radiation had led to acid rain, in this case, the rain was the survivors last chance at hydration, but instead had a burning chemical on their body. Not long after, a second bomb had destroyed Nagaski city, the results only increasing the casualty count by thousands. So the million dollar question is, was the usage of deadly radioactive weapons worth the number of innocent civilian lives if it meant to end the war? Well, one of the war principles would consider the proportionality of it all, comparing the results to the initial goal of the bombing. The U.S believed that Japan would have eventually killed thousands of Americans instead of surrendering, so it was better to develop the atomic bomb to stop the war now.
Another aspect of this situation is the need to humble a nation during the midst of war, in which I am completely against. That is because when you're playing with the lives of innocent civilians in your hands, nothing should ever be considered a game or a competition that plays into a nation's ego. In which it is seen by Japan, “The Japanese believed that the emperor is a direct descendent of the gods who created their islands and their people. The emperor is thus an essential symbol of Japanese heritage and culture, and Japanese troops will fight desperately, even committing suicide, before they break their obligations to him by surrendering”.
Roslindale, MA, US
Posts: 11
LTQ 7: The Ethics of the Atomic Bomb
I don't believe that the use of overwhelming force in war, like the atomic bomb, is necessary or permissible under any circumstances, especially if the cost is hundreds of thousands of innocent people. To this day, the consequences of the bombing of Hiroshima are still felt by survivors and their families. In the context of WWII, I believe the use of the atomic bomb was unnecessary, even though I can agree it achieved its strategic objectives. Ultimately, the end of the war was hastened, the US was able to demonstrate to other countries that they were willing to go to drastic measures in war and certainly had the means to do so, the looming threat of Soviet communism was thwarted, and a large number of both American and Asian lives were saved. It is clear that the use of the bomb did provide some advantages. However, despite its effectiveness, I find the ethical and moral ramifications far outweigh the military advantages and render the bomb’s use unjustifiable. At the end of the war, Japan was considerably weak. As described in the article, Was There a Diplomatic Alternative? The Atomic Bombing and Japan’s Surrender, Japan was particularly vulnerable to “concentrated air attack[s] upon [it’s] crowded cities, industrial, and food resources,” and simply could not measure up to the myriad of industrial resources opposing nations had. They were already on the verge of defeat and possibly were close to surrendering, but the US refused to accept Japan’s conditional surrender terms, further prolonging the war. Additionally, the US claimed that Hiroshima was specifically chosen as a target city for the bomb as it contained a valuable Japanese military base. As argued by NPR, it is clear that this was not strictly a military action, as the bomb was aimed at the center of a city of 300,000 civilians. It is even more dismaying that the US employed the bombs, despite not fully understanding the short-term or long-term repercussions. While the bomb did serve its purpose well, I cannot justify its use under any circumstances, unless it is the absolute last resort in a conflict. Diplomacy and negotiation efforts should be fully exhausted before coming to that decision. The catastrophic outcomes, especially regarding the lives of thousands of innocent people, call the morality of using nuclear weaponry into question.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 11
Response on the Ethics of Atomic Bombs
To determine if a nuclear bomb is permissible to use in war we must first go over what we learned earlier in the year about the ethics of war in general. A war in general must be for increasing human rights with no ulterior motive, must maintain levels of destruction, and avoid human loss to the greatest extent possible. Japan’s motivation was the creation of an empire free from the West in alignment with Pan-Asianism. However, the brutality and sexual violence upon the Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Burmese, Indonesian and other peoples quickly made this war unjust. This behavior was evident by 1937 with the Rape of Nanjing and sexual enslavement.
The United States did not declare war here though. Instead we only invaded after Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Realistically the humanitarian catastrophe in China should have prompted a response. When we compare the result of the nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the evils of Japan, it becomes more realistic to use the bombs. Furthermore, the prolongment of war and starvation of mainland Japan would have arguably harmed the non-stockpiled populus more than the military in addition to the greater loss of United State troops.
Now, as most agree, the use of atomic weapons is immoral except for very select uses. If there was a military base large enough and well enough defended to make a traditional invasion impossible would a nuclear weapon be allowed? That depends on the motivation of the war, but, assuming it is just, then I would consider it strategically passable. I am not saying it is moral; I believe that wars are immoral and should never occur unless they are in true defense. If an offensive war is never declared there will be no war. But on the nuclear issue, Ukraine gave its nuclear arsenal to Russia during its formation in exchange for guaranteed independence. That treaty wasn’t enforced, but the reason foreign troops aren’t in Ukraine is because of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and fear of world war.
Charlestown, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 9
I do not think it is ever permissible to use overwhelming force. However, I do think that it can very rarely be the strategic answer, and I think that the Hiroshima bomb was one example of the tactically correct decision to make, but the casualties it caused make the decision far from morally correct. It clearly ended the second world war, a war that took the lives of many and was home to all sorts of insurmountable evil, and it also prevented a full scale invasion by the United States of Japan, which would’ve caused many more casualties.
This might differ from many people, but I am strictly anti-war. In my opinion, no one wins a war ,and especially not by any historical measure. One side will “win” but there are still many thousands or millions of military and civilian deaths. Plus, it causes a ton of conflict that is bound to get allies involved wh9ich then further increases the conflict, deaths, and so on.
Also, the economic effects of war are astronomical. For example, the russia-ukraine has depleted the pocket of the Ukrainian government and has caused hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent on them by other surrounding countries in the form of aid and ammunition. This increases inflation indirectly, as well as put some of these countries in a tough financial spot, as the war is not going to get any better. I do think that if a war has started, the country that starts it should definitely be accountable for its actions in the form of economic or social reparations. However, the world needs to cut the wars off at the source, as world peace benefits all, and war literally does no good.
I do not believe in atomic bombs from an ethical or moral standpoint, but I more firmly disagree with the basis of war as a whole.
Reflections of the Ethics of the Atomic Bomb
Is it moral or just to hurt the innocent? The principles of just war state that civilians, or non-combatants, are never permissible targets of war, and the deaths of civilians are only justified under the circumstances that they are unavoidable victims of an attack on a military target. According to these rules of reasonable war, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjust. For example, the US claimed that the attack was targeted on an important military base, while their intention was really to target civilians, devastate Japan and worsen morale to bring them to a surrender. According to “Hiroshima Choices” from Brown University, Arthur Harris, the chief of British Bomber Command stated, “It has been decided that the primary objective of your [Allied] operations should now be focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular, of the industrial worker.” Additionally, the US had alternative strategies to the atomic bomb to end the war. In “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb” in Harper’s Magazine, Henry Stimson revealed, “In reaching these conclusions the Interim Committee carefully considered such alternatives as a detailed advance warning or a demonstration in some uninhabited area.” Thus, the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not unavoidable in a military mission, but rather directly targeted by the US despite alternative military and diplomatic strategies. However, the debate surrounding this subject contemplates the circumstance in which some nations refuse to follow the reasonable rules of war. Japan refused to uphold the principles of just war and targeted the US despite their neutrality. For instance, in “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” Henry Stimson stated, “Although U.S. military intelligence had predicted a Japanese offensive in the Pacific, the Japanese did not officially declare war on the United States until after their warplanes had struck Pearl Harbor. Americans were outraged at the breach of fair play.” In this case, Japan did not uphold the rules of just war; but does this justify the US’s attack on Japan, which also broke their established principles? I do not believe that it is permissible to use overwhelming force in war if it means the harm of non-combatants if there are alternative strategies available. Otherwise, the very concept of principles of just war is at risk.
Boston, Massachusetts, UM
Posts: 11
Reflections on the ethics of the Atomic Bomb
The circumstances in which overwhelming force is permissible are few and far between in war. In the case of atomic bombs, they should never be used unless there is zero other options to resolve an issue. In the case of the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki I do believe it was a necessary action to end a global conflict. The only time I support using nuclear weaponry is if it is absolutely deemed necessary for the survival of a nation, or to directly stop a threat posed that may significantly hurt a country. This does not mean that significant threats need to be dealt with by nuclear weapons, we saw the GWOT and Operation Desert Storm be carried out fully with no nuclear weapons discharged. Some nations do need to be humbled decisively at times but that does not mean that they need to be nuked. There are ways to deal with threats and combatants to deter them completely without dropping atomic bombs. Some nations do need to be humbled decisively like Japan in world war 2, however I think that after that excessive show of force, the fear factor that possessing nuclear weapons carries, should do all the talking, instead of the nukes themselves. I think that the 9 countries that possess nuclear weapons should take it upon themselves to only use them as an empty threat, a retaliation measure that will never be used. I think it is important that atomic bombs are not used in the world today, because of the destructive affects it would have no matter where it is dropped. With populations rising all the time and international tensions heightening; the damage a nuclear weapon could and would cause could be irreversible and plunge the world into nuclear war, effectively ending life as we know it.
