Was America’s use of the atomic bomb against Japan justified? Was its use really necessary to end the war?
We may never know; it’s a hypothetical, hindsight, what if situation. It probably wasn’t necessary, seeing as the rest of the Axis was defeated by then, but there is no doubt that the use of the atom bomb was efficient in ending the war and saved American lives. Was it right, however, to kill a couple hundred thousand Japanese, most of which were civilians? In Walzer’s sense of utilitarianism, it was certainly justified for President Harry Truman to dirty his hands.
Truman had two options: use the atomic bomb and end the war swiftly, while killing tens of thousands of innocents, or wage war in a more traditional air, land and sea approach, which would certainly increase American casualties while possibly allowing another attack on the US, and prolong the war indefinitely.
The utilitarian concerned solely with American interests would most certainly agree with President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb; it provided the greatest benefit to the greatest number of Americans. Today’s utilitarian concerned with mankind in general should also agree that the American development and use of the atomic bomb was the right choice, for it provided the greatest benefit for not only Americans, but the greatest number of humans as well. For, at the moment, the use of the bomb not only prevented prolonged warfare, but, also has effectively prevented future use of the atomic bomb. Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Japan showed the world the devastating consequences of nuclear warfare and future implications of a future world war using atomic bombs, which would almost certainly result in total destruction of the world.
Was the American government’s choice to develop the atom bomb wrong in and of itself? In a world driven by progress, someone else (namely, Germany, according to Einstein) was bound to harness the power of uranium chain reactions, so the U.S. cannot be blamed for the invention of nuclear weapons; the U.S. simply developed the power first. On a side note, development of the atom bomb also helped to develop nuclear power as a viable energy resource.
Utilitarianism or not, it appears that Truman and the U.S. were right to get their hands dirty.
I agree and do think it was the right right choice to use the atomic bomb. In re-guards to Machiavellianism the ends justified the means. Although we had to do something that is considerably “immoral” it was for the greater good of our country. For there to be good, sometimes there needs to be bad. Its not fair but since we don’t live in a perfect world it is necessary to get our hands dirty in order to get ahead.
section12
I disagree that it was necessary to attack Japan at all, much less murder hundreds of thousands of civilians. If we were to have totally destroyed their navy what possible military threat would they have been? We could have simply waited them out, allowing only food and necessities into the country, and accepted their surrender when it eventually came. The utilitarian viewpoint of saving lives for Americans ultimately values and an American soldier’s life higher than that of a Japanese civilian, who committed no other crime than living in a certain part of the world.
We dropped the atomic bomb on Japan for two main reasons, to show off to/ frighten the Russians and to make sure that we would dominate the peace process.
To claim that in dropping it we showed the world the awful power of atomic weaponry it was is to reduce the Japanese to little more than guinea pigs. The US had already detonated several of these devices and studied the results, they knew what they were capable of. The world could have easily learned as well if we had just shared our findings.
The detonation of the bomb did not stop the mass proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. In fact the Russians began desperately working on them in an attempt to compete.
As to nuclear power we have yet to figure out what to do with it’s dangerous by products.
Developing a technology and understanding it, is not the same as using it. I do not believe that were were wrong in learning about and understanding this new idea of atomic power. It was when we brutally murdered with it for political gain that we crossed a line.
No, the detonation of the bomb did not stop the mass proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world; however, it didn’t start it, either. Other countries had scientists with the knowledge of atomic chain reactions; American scientists weren’t necessarily better than others just because America was a superpower – other countries had scientists just as capable as ours, but perhaps just didn’t have the resources. One way or another, the atom bomb would have been developed; the reason for the American development of the weapon was because Germany had already begun.
Note – has any other country used the atom bomb since?
No.
You bring up some interesting points, matchett. First of all, going off of what you said about “waiting them out,” I think it is very interesting that the U.S. History textbook I had back in high school made a big point about the reason Japan began invading countries around the Pacific was to acquire supplies that were necessary for maintaining the war effort, such as rubber and petroleum. The inference here is that Japan could not, just by itself, sustained a war effort for any major period of time without having access to these resources in occupied or allied countries. I find it fascinating that the same book did not even touch on this fact when exploring the decision to drop the atomic bomb. Was it simply overlooked? Did Japan have the resources to hold on, and for how much longer? Maybe these are questions that can’t be answered, or maybe one of you who knows more about World War II than I do can enlighten me about it.
The other point that you make that continues to bother me on this issue is that we destroyed a civilian city filled primarily with civlians. Sticking with the World War II theme, could we have avoided a situation involving killing civilians (or at least huge numbers of them) by attacking military targets with the atomic bombs? Maybe it is fair to compare the atomic bombing to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in terms of being a statement attack designed to make a major impression on the enemy (and force them to make a major choice, either declaring war or surrendur). The most interesting thing about comparing Pearl Harbor to the two atomic bombings is the great disparity in the number of people killed, roughly 2,400 at Pearl Harbor [citing Conn, Stetson; Fairchild, Byron; Engelman, Rose C. (2000), "7 — The Attack on Pearl Harbor", Guarding the United States and Its Outposts, Washington D.C.: Center of Military History United States Army, http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/guard-us/ch7.htm%5D versus 220,000 in the atomic bombings [citing "Frequently Asked Questions #1". Radiation Effects Research Foundation. http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html. Retrieved 2007-09-18.]. What is so staggering to me is that these numbers are not different by a percentage, but rather a full factor of 100. Could we not have made a major statement more on the level of what the Japanese did to us to begin the war at Pearl Harbor? To me, it seems like a good idea, but I must confess I only have a superficial understanding of the issue.
By use, I mean against another country. Also, I never do support that the bombing was necessary? No, the U.S. would have won the war, regardless, but was it justified? Yes. There is no doubt that the bombing was ridiculously terrible, but sometimes, leaders must get their hands dirty. Besides, how hard of a decision was it for Truman to drop the bomb? All Japanese people were spies, even American ones, and they deserved internment (note my sarcasm).
I agree with the post. To me, dropping the bomb on Japan is probably one of the best real-world applications of the dirty hands argument. There is little doubt in my mind (and I have read about this extensively) that the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives, both American and Japanese. Yet it is on it’s face a morally wrong action: the incineration of several hundred thousand innocent Japanese civilians.
How ought we have dealt with this? One way says that Truman ought to be proud, as he had the courage to break standard moral guidelines where doing so is necessary. A “Catholic” view might suggest that there have been some sort of accountability for Truman, although there never was. The “Protestant” view of the argument, on the other hand, a leader out to feel tortured by the decision he makes, even if these decision were a net good. Truman once said he never lost a wink of sleep over dropping the bomb. While I am fairly skeptical of this, it’s worth considering that leaders may not actually be tortured by the horrible moral decisions history calls them to make.
I find it interesting that you said Truman never lost a wink of sleep over dropping the A bomb. One thing Walzer highlights in his essay, is that we pick politicians who have scruples over their decisions, and lose sleep over them. In Walzer’s essay he discusses that most politicians are crooked, but the few out there who cannot make a monumental decision such as dropping the A bomb in a instant, are the ones most fit for powerful positions. Maybe Truman was the wrong man to make the decision if he didn’t lose sleep over the death of thousands of innocent japanese citzens?
The dropping of the atomic bombs, to me, brings skepticism to the idea of Truman having dirty hands. If, as Ewan points out, Truman never lost a night’s sleep after killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians (of a hostile country mind you), then Truman suffered a Neo-Classical or Machiavellian case of dirty hands. Truman would have, undoubtedly, had to face the moral question before the decision was made to use the bombs; however, never losing a nights sleep on the murder of thousands of innocents is utilitarian. The highest possible number of people benefitted from the action and its outcome. We could also categorize Truman under the “Protestant” model of dirty hands, assuming he came to terms with his decision at some point in his life. However, I think it wrong to claim Truman as a sufferer of “Catholic” dirty-hand philosophy because this would have caused him MANY nights of lost sleep. The horrific killings of thousands of civilians (I am neither condoning or condemning) seems to me to be a overly perfect example of what should necessitate a “Catholic” dirty hands philosophy. This, however, is not for me to decide as I did not have to make such a life-changing (in physical and emotional sense) decision, and I can only shed light upon this subject.
President Truman was completely justified in a Utilitarian view to use the atomic bomb to bring about an end to the war. If he would have allowed the war to continue in a more traditional way (i.e. land, sea, air) the war would have been prolonged further, causing many more U.S. causalities and deaths. He clearly did the most good for the most amount of people in the United States by dropping the Atomic bomb which did not cause a single American fatality as a prolonged war would have. Truman even gave the Japanese a chance to surrender before dropping the first Atomic bomb, so he had exhausted every other realistic possibility and had to “dirty his hands” so to speak.
He may have even done the rest of the world a favor in showing the great danger of destruction brought about by the Atomic bomb and how it should not be taken lightly. If the United States had not used an Atom bomb then, is it possible that the Cold War could have become an actual nuclear war because no one would have known of the capabilities of nuclear warfare? Truman could have actual done the world some good by dropping it to show that it is something that should never be used again and it has successively frightened off anyone from using it to this day.
The case really seems to be that how, if at all, was it possible to avoid Dirty Hands. This was war, a war that the U.S. was reluctantly forced into by the Japanese. Regardless on the decision of dropping the atomic bomb or not, the U.S. was going to be forced to kill many Japanese soldiers. Whether it be taking our troops into Japan or dropping a bomb to do the job, the numbers of deaths and injuries of Japanese soldiers would have still been too high for many people’s liking. This was just a decision to avoid the killing of American soldiers when the U.S. had the resources at hand, i.e. atomic bomb, to end the situation all together. There was no way to avoid it and in times of war, there really is no way to. Nearly all powerful governments and societies since the beginning of time had to achieve their power through violence.
There is no doubt that dropping the bomb was the quickest and most efficient way to end the war. Had Truman not acted against Japan, it is certain (as has been noted) that more Americans would die and that the Americans and Japanese may have gone on to fight more bloody battles off the coast of Japan. The moral argument that murdering is wrong becomes largely irrelevant during wartime. As terrible as it is, war is an exception to many moral rules: killing another human being, cheating, lying, spying, stealing. History is littered with these stories, because history is littered with wars, where only one objective rings true: winning.
Despite the horror that is naturally associated with the murder of thousands of people, bombing Hiroshima & Nagasaki was for the greater good of the American people. And for a country that needed to win, and wanted to win as soon as possible, no other option could have made sense.
I don’t get the argument during war time that killing is wrong. Japan bombed Pearl Harbour. What are we supposed to do? Just sit by and let them attack us? No, we need to do something. Now, in terms of the atomic bomb, it is a little less cut and dry. However, at that point I feel like given how many Americans got killed at Pearl Harbour, I don’t feel quite as bad about taking the lives of some innocents. The priority is saving American lives, far too many of which have been taken already. The atomic bomb killed 100K to save a million.
Finally, someone brought up the argument that we didn’t need to attack Japan at all. Um….what? We were IN A WAR with them. Yes, we were clearly going to win, but that’s only because of the ability that we had to attack them. It was important to attack and finish the war ASAP and that’s exactly what we did.
This morning, my roommate showed me an article that uses a different example to ask the same questions posed in this post. The article was about the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment that was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service between 1932 and 1972. The experiment was conducted on 399 men in the late stages of syphilis. The men were mostly illiterate farmers from one of the poorest areas in Alabama. Findings from the experiment were to be collected solely from autopsies, thus the men were not told what they were suffering from and were deliberately not treated. When the experiment was dismantled in 1972, 128 of the men had died from syphilis and the disease had spread to many of their wives.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment is another interesting example when thinking about Walzer and the concept of dirty hands. The question the study obviously asks is whether or not it is acceptable to let these men suffer in order to gain information and thus help others who suffer from syphilis in the future.
Although Walzer thinks that it is impossible to govern without dirty hands, I think the Tukegee Syphilis Experiment is an example where the bad far outweighed the good. The infected men were essentially converted into laboratory animals who, if aware of their condition, may have tried to find treatment elsewhere. Thus, the actions of the US Department of Public Health in this case were unforgivable.
First, I just want to thank you for using the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment as an example, because it is such a powerful event that not enough people know about.
I agree completely. I think that the added insult to the injury comes from the fact that it was done by a branch of the US government. Not only are people suffering and being killed for some twisted experiment, but the experiment is being run by the people that are supposed to protect and provide for them.
Also, this experiment was used to see the differences between the progression of syphilis in African-Americans compared to white people. Thus, the people “participating” in this experiment were only African-Americans. Interesting how you don’t see the same experimental procedures being applied to the white population too, huh? Oh, racism….
One last thing that struck me comes from a website I just looked at to double check the facts that I had thought to be true (http://www.tuskegee.edu/global/story.asp?s=1207586). It talks about how hard the government worked to make sure the men in the control group did not receive any treatment:
“One of the most chilling aspects of the experiment was how zealously the PHS kept these men from receiving treatment. When several nationwide campaigns to eradicate venereal disease came to Macon County, the men were prevented from participating. Even when penicillin —the first real cure for syphilis— was discovered in the 1940s, the Tuskegee men were deliberately denied the medication.
During World War II, 250 of the men registered for the draft and were consequently ordered to get treatment for syphilis, only to have the PHS exempt them. Pleased at their success, the PHS representative announced: “So far, we are keeping the known positive patients from getting treatment.” The experiment continued in spite of the Henderson Act (1943), a public health law requiring testing and treatment for venereal disease, and in spite of the World Health Organization’s Declaration of Helsinki (1964), which specified that “informed consent” was needed for experiments involving human beings.”
Forgot to site!
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2898246?&Search=yes&term=Tuskegee&term=Syphilis&term=Experiment&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DTuskegee%2BSyphilis%2BExperiment%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26wc%3Don&item=1&ttl=306&returnArticleService=showArticle
To this day I am still fascinated by the arguments surrounding should we or should we not have dropped the bombs on Japan. The bottom line is that this was war. Throughout the history of mankind war has been a “dirty” business. The morality issue really lies with the country starting the war. In this case Japan holds that honor. Was Japan concerned about all of those who died at Pearl Harbor based upon their actions? Then why the concern later for them? On the civilian and morality side, these posters seem to forget all the civilians and innocents that Japanese raped and tortured and murdered in other countries that they aggressively invaded like China, Korea and the Philippines. How many innocent civilians were saved by Truman dropping the bomb? One could argue that it was more than were lost by dropping the bombs. How many civilian lives would have been lost by us invading on land? The argument of blockading and waiting them out has its fallacies too. As was correctly pointed out by others, Japan prepared for this war by devising ways to supplement its needs. Could we have blockaded every country that the Japanese occupied to prevent them from supplying themselves or having bases or operation in other countries? I think not. That was why the Pacific campaign of island hopping was necessary. Read about those brutal battles and the American lives lost. The bomb was developed in response to Germany trying to build their own bomb. Had they gotten one first, I have no doubt Hitler would have used it. How many civilian lives were lost in our campaign into Germany? How many civilian lives did Hitler wipe out? The answer is millions. Do the naysayers to Truman believe the bomb would have been justified against Germany? After all a few hundred thousand lives is a lot less than millions.
Truman was elected President of the United States and his sole responsibility was to the people of this country. Doesn’t Truman have a moral obligation to be President and Commander in Chief to the best of his abilities in which case he is obligated to defend America, it’s freedom , and Her citizens first and foremost? In looking at war, it is always necessary to “take the fight” to the enemies homeland and break their will. If there are no consequences to the people of that nation there is no reason for them to end the war. Let’s look at four wars in American history. As a percent of the population, more American lives were lost in the Civil War than any other. Lee took the war to the north because he needed to break the will of the northern people to fight the war. This was the “picnic basket” crowd that went to Manassas thinking it would be over in a few weeks. It was Sherman’s March to the Sea that really broke the Southern will as much as Grant taking Lee at Petersburg. Now let’s move on to another Truman war, that of Korea. General MacArthur lost his job because he rightly argued for going after the enemy over the Yalu River. When Truman said no, he basically set in motion a haven from where the enemy could go and fight, essentially ensuring at best a draw. We now still have a divided Korea today. Go to South Korea and get on a bus with military people with machine guns. How many civilian lives have been lost in North Korea to that repressive regime? Could we have ultimately saved them by using a bomb to break their will to fight? Then there is Vietnam. A war we had no chance to win. Once the decision was made that we could not cross the 38th parallel, the best we could do was a tie because the Viet Cong could always sneak back home and then come back across when ready. What they did was break the will of the Americans and South Vietnamese. How many civilian lives were lost in Vietnam and Cambodia (which our laws said we had to stay out of) to these murderous regimes? I’ll answer that for you, it was millions. Had we invaded the north or dropped a bomb could we not have saved more than we lost?
Now compare it to the Gulf Wars in Iraq. The first time we just freed Kuwait and the atrocities in Saddam’s torture camps continued. However, in the 2nd Gulf War we took the war to their soil and we saw the results as the people had no stomach to support Iraq’s war efforts any longer. The issue there now is a question of power between Sunni and Shia. How many civilians were lost in Iraq’s wars with Iran and Kuwait?
The bottom line is when aggressors start wars, they care little for civilian life. In bringing these to an end, we ultimately save more lives and the President has fulfilled his first and foremost responsibility to American citizens.
It’s important to note what our alternatives were in the war. The war would have droned on for probably years, despite the fact that we were going to clearly win. We would likely have had to resort to chemical/biological warfare and probably other sorts of war which are as or more inhumane than the atomic bomb itself. It had to be done and it was done.
Another interesting fact: if you look at the statistics for the fire bombings of Dresden, it is probable that those attacks actually caused more causalities than the atomic bombings. The point is, there was no good way to go about ending the war and it actually good have been far worse than the chosen method of the atomic bomb, even when only considering deaths.
Justified reasoning for dropping the bomb? Was it justified for Japan to take out Pearl Harbor with a surprise attack? Hell no. This was War and many people argue if it was humane to kill so many civilians. Well in the “art of war” it comes down to kill or be killed. We gave Japan what it deserved and more. Civilian casualties are a part of war and president Truman had to dirty his hands. He had to, and the American people were behind him in support. War is a touchy subject and there will always be conflicting views about it and its outcomes, but truth is, it will be on earth long after we are gone.
The problem here is that we view the world as separate states or nations. And as long as our nation is benefiting, or our people are getting richer, or our standard of living improves, we don’t care what happens to the others.
But there are no others.
there are no borders
there is only us, the people of earth, who should each be given the same respect and opportunities for life.
When we watched the video in class, and they changed all the names of the cities to US cities, didn’t that touch you? Didn’t that make you realize what a farce all of this patriotism and nationalism really is? Each conventional, incendiary, and atomic bomb, hurt and killed people who were loved, who had plans for the future. Underneath those shattered cityscapes were the bodies of people, exactly like you and me with the same hopes and dreams.
and we killed them
for what?
So that a certain nation could dominate the globe for a few decades? So that certain leaders could rake in a bit more power, and exploit our brothers and sisters around the globe more efficiently? Is that worth even one person losing someone they love?
We are all talking so casually about this like its some cold calculation between our people and their people, as if there is some distinction that makes their family hurt any less when they die.
Who are the real enemies?
is it the people of this or that country?
is it some ethnic group?
or a certain religion?
no
Our only enemies are people who would have us kill each other to improve profit margins, or maintain a dynasty. The people who tell us that we are better than our brethren the world over. Who split us into sects and factions, drawing imaginary lines on the map and tell us that we are fundamentally different from one another. Who say that we need to be afraid of the dark, and that without their protection we’d be lost.
those are the real enemies
but what’s wonderful about them is they depend entirely on us for power.
They need us to believe in their lies, and buy into their hate.
and we don’t need any of it
we can stop them any time we want
It’s just a choice: Between seeing the world as separate and divided, artificial groups rallying against one another, and seeing the world as one people: without any need for masters or destruction. To quote bill hicks, “a choice right now between fear and love.”
(http://www.quotegeek.com/index.php?action=viewcategory&categoryid=93)
As someone who lived in the heart of Hiroshima, Japan for two years of her life, I can honestly say that I do not think that dropping the atomic bomb was justified in any way. The decision was morally wrong and, in this case, the ends did not justify the means. Japan was an isolated island, dependent on its allies. If Truman had waited the war out and diminished Japan’s supplies off, the war would have inevitably ended with fewer lives lost on both sides; he had options. Imagine if America had been on the other side of the atomic bomb and Japan had killed over a hundred-thousand civilians, would we still be saying that dropping the atomic bomb was just? No. While the Japanese did attack Pearl Harbor and ended many lives, Pearl Harbor was a naval base and should have been ready for whatever came its way. While the attack was tragic, Pearl Harbor was not the equivalent of Hiroshima.
I remember listening to an old Japanese women tell my third grade class the story of the day the atomic bomb dropped. She lost her whole family that day and, afterwards, dedicated herself to making her story and the countless other stories of those who lost known to whoever would listen. It is easy to judege whether or not an action of war was justified when one is judging from far away; however, when one comes into contact with the people, the faces of war, it is not such a simple situation.
I am going to have to agree with Kristen here on the issue. Dropping the bombs was unnecessary on a moralistic field. I don’t think utilitarianism is a good reason to justify dropping the bombs. Utilitarianism states that the ends justify the means. But if you completely ignore the means of a result, you degrade the essence of the people that died as a result of the atom bomb, at impact and after impact. Ignoring these civilian deaths is not right at all. Ignoring the means of the consequences gives us precedence to do the same in other sensitive extreme situations. Like the means to getting a good grade: you cheat on a test and get a good grade. Does that mean that professors should ignore the means of your success on utilitarian grounds? In the case of the atom bomb, utilitarianism gives the ground to ignore human rights, especially the human right to live.
There were other means of which the US could have attacked Japan with minimum casualties such as taking out Japan’s strongest advantage – their navy. They could have cut off access to resources as Japan is an isolated island. They didn’t have to attack civilians. If they felt it so necessary to actually use the bomb they could have used it in a completely isolated area and film it and tell Japan that they will use this bomb on them if they don’t surrender. And given that they did drop the first bomb there was absolutely no reason to drop the second bomb at all.
You say “For, at the moment, the use of the bomb not only prevented prolonged warfare, but, also has effectively prevented future use of the atomic bomb. Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Japan showed the world the devastating consequences of nuclear warfare and future implications of a future world war using atomic bombs, which would almost certainly result in total destruction of the world.” But the use of the atomic bomb has led to the proliferation of more nuclear weapons being built and thus an ever constant threat of nuclear war.
Use of the pathos style to argue against war may appeal to the moral absolutist, but, realistically, there is no absolutist that leads any country (the Pope, perhaps, one might argue). So, you have to adjust your view to accommodate the reality that no successful leader can lead without ever addressing the dirty hands dilemma. Moral absolutists often follow the deontological rational model (to use a term I learned in my discussion! Thanks Erin, gotta give props where deserved!); that is to say that they obey the commands of a deity. I think that it is safe enough to reference God as a deity we are all familiar with. For the Christian or Jewish absolutist must remember that even God killed some young bloods, he made it rain on them hoes (aka the Great Flood, pardon my pop culture reference)! [Genesis 6-9, The Bible]. Every leader, even God, has had to face the problem of dirty hands. Even God has had to get his hands dirty by killing MILLIONS; clearly his ends justified the means, and to question this is kind of blasphemous. Even if you don’t believe in God, you can probably agree with me that God is a legitimate moral model.
Once again, regardless of whether Truman decided to use the atom bomb, other countries would have developed it. #1 Science is not something restricted to the US. #2 Although more nuclear weapons have been built, how many have been used? #3 A threat is not the same thing as an action.
Interesting. Personally I think the use of the atomic bomb, as it was used in Japan during the Second World War, was not morally justified. I don’t think it is ever permissible to target civilians in a war. The atomic bomb not only targeted civilians but it also destroyed their cities. Civilians did not agree to enter the war rather combatants did.
By living in Japan, its citizens, according to Socrates, entered into a contract and agreed to be a loyal citizen of the militaristic empire; they accepted the terms of their government and their form of government (Crito, 51e). As a conscious decision or not, they agreed to accept the government’s actions, abide by them and follow them.
Each country has a system of government. If you agree to remain within the country, you are accepting the system; if you don’t like it, then leave! Granted, in some Communist nations, leaving is/was not a choice; Japan was not one of these nations, though – once again, please correct me if I am wrong.
If the civilians didn’t want to face the consequences of the nation’s actions, aka the bombing of Pearl Harbor, they should have left (was there a policy of civilian detainment in Japan? I cannot find a source online that suggests this, and I don’t want to make false claims, but rather argue a theory). Granted, there are citizens who would not have had the resources or means to leave the country, but that is something that is to be accepted – remaining in the country, you know that you have to accept the system.
A civilian, by the way, is NEVER defenseless. A nation, by definition, must have an army. Even the Vatican has an army. For, by accepting the system, they are defended by this army. Japan had planes, Japan had bombs, Japan had guns, Japan had soldiers, Japan was defended. Not well enough, clearly, but Japan was defended, and its civilians were defended.
As far as individualist action, for individual defense, they have the option arm themselves, either by leaving the country, or by joining the army (if they meet the requirements, of course). What about children? They are legally under the care of their parents, and by not moving their children, they consent their children to the system as well. By agreeing to the system, they agree to the government’s provisions for defense and its actions and whatever may happen to them.
Say, for example, if the US decided to enter a ridiculous WWIII against every superpower in the world, would you move to another country? Yes, I’m sure you would, or at least seek temporary asylum in another country with a system or policy you agree with. Is it easy to be granted asylum? Maybe not so, but where there is a will, there is a way, and this is a defense, even if not a successful one.
Targeting civilians in a war is every bit as fair as targeting the enemy army. For, they are not only defended, but a part of the nation just as much as a city is or an army is, and the idea of war is to defeat the opposing nation, no? Like it or not, this is how it is.
Guys, argue, don’t just state your opinion. Stating your opinion is not the same as true argument (for I refuse to believe the English 125 text that “Everything is an Argument”). I’m pretty sure you won’t get participation credit for posting simple loaded language opinions.
first off, your argument justifies terrorism as a legitimate form of warfare.
In fact Osama bin Ladin invokes the atomic bombs, and the mass bombings at the end of world war two, in many of his speeches claiming that they show the US setting a precedent for warfare against civilian populations. If you’re ok with terrorism then I suppose we can move on.
what if as a civilian you remain in the country tying to change the decisions or direction of the government?
I agree with almost no US foreign and domestic policy decisions, but I remain in the country in the hopes of changing the government. One can not simply run from country to country until one find a government who’s policies one completely endorses, both because you would never find such a country and because then no progress would ever occur. If no one ever stood up to a government they disagreed with then the world would be a mass of despotism without even the idea of democracy. An individual can be loyal to a country but not to a government. To assume otherwise dooms thousands of innocent people to death be it from atomic bomb or hijacked airplane.
again
Pearl harbor=2400 people dead 63 civilians
Hiroshima+ Nagasaki=more than 130,000 people dead as of 1945 of which more than 111,000 were civilians http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hiroshima1.html
(and 12 were US pows http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/HoroshimaPOW.htm)
these two events are not really comparable on any scale
also the US lost a 300-400,000 people in all of world war two
Japan lost about 2 million (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm)
so its not as though they had inflicted ridiculous level of un checked casualties on us that we were avenging.
finally, where there is a will there is not necessarily a way.
It is possible, and even likely, to work your entire life for something and never attain it. No matter what we do sometimes we can not get what we want. and to condemn thousands of people to death for failing to fulfill a platitude seems a tad cold.
I agree that the US made the right decision on getting their hands dirty. It needed to be done because if it was not done by the Americans another government would have dropped the bomb in the future. I just disagree with the way the Truman administration handled the process of the bomb dropping. They did not make a new call for surrender prior to the bomb dropping. And before the second bomb there was very little communication between the US and Japan. I feel that the Americans could have dealt with their communications with the Japanese better.
Hmm I’m not trying to be a moral absolutist. I’m just saying I don’t think using the atom bomb was justified on the moral grounds and logical grounds as well. Morally the use of the atom bomb gives us the precedence to ignore human rights in other situations and logically the use of the atom bomb wasn’t the best idea because they could have use alternative methods.
I guess that’s one way to look at deontology. The way I’ve always seen deontology is that it argues that the motives of the actor carrying out the action determines is rightness/wrongness. In this case, I think the atom bomb would actually be justified on deontological grounds…
Regardless, I still think the atom bomb was not justified especially because it attacked civilians who didn’t have really have the opportunity/means of leaving the country or determining whether or not they were born in Japan its self.
I also agree that the United States government and President Harry Truman acted appropriately in dirtying their hands when they decided to drop the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They had no choice to dirty their hands because they could not risk American lives, money, and time on the war that was already going on for far too long. If the President and government had chosen the alternative their hands still would have been dirtied by the cost in both lives and dollars, while also being crucified by the American media and people, an unadvisable course of action if they wanted to be re-elected and stay in power. Truman and Congress were put in a lose-lose situation and tried to make the best of the cards they were dealt.
I’d agree with Sweta here.
Many people make the point that American soldiers would have died had we not used the atom bomb. These American soldierse enlisted in the military voluntarily and were perfectly aware of the fact that they may indeed lose their lives serving, while Japanese civilians never agreed to risk their lives for their country, which I think makes the two totally separate. It also poses the question as to what makes one life more valuable than another. Obviously our actions dictated that we believe that an American life is more valuable. But from a humanitarian perspective, isn’t a life simply a life? And isn’t a Japanese life equivalent to an American life?
I think all lives are equally valuable, and therefore I take an ideological standpoint against the use of the atomic bomb.
I think I’m going to echo what most people are saying here. The bomb was used to end the war. When looked upon, a ground invasion would have killed many more people (emphasis on people here) rather than simply dropping the bomb. Truman went in the direction that he thought that more lives would be saved in.
I believe that Truman could go down this path because he viewed himself as a “Protestant” hero. His orders during WWII had indirectly been the cause of death of many people (Americans and German alike) and considering that fact, he probably felt that he could allow the A-bomb to drop and know that he was already dirtied. This is the flaw of the Protestant view of Dirty Hands: once you have killed one person, you can go on killing many.
In regards to the first post, I dislike the fact that you separate Japanese and American nationalities. No matter your nationality, we are still one people. Truman’s action did not save the most Americans; rather, it saved the most lives of PEOPLE out of both options. With this view in mind, I wholeheartedly agree with the choice Truman had to make.
Relating back to Machiavelli, the ends justified the means here. As an individual you would always rather protect your own or those you know rather than a foreigner or someone you don’t know. If we didn’t use the atomic bomb in this instance we would have essentially condemned tens of thousands of American lives in an attack on Japan. To avoid this and an ongoing World War, dropping an atomic bomb was necessary. Although making this decision was gut wrenching, it was very necessary.
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki marked the reign of American supremacy over the world. Once we showed off our power to the world through a complete annihilation of two cities, another bomb hasn’t been dropped since and no one has yet to topple us from being on top (although some say China and India are getting close).
It’s extremely difficult to debate on whether or not it is justified to have dropped the bomb. To me, there are only two ways to go about it with two very different answers. The question should’ve included whether or not we omit compassion in this case.
One way to look at it, is morally. To drop the two bombs on CIVILIAN cities, not even naval bases or military cities, is where the line was crossed from being logical and making a statement to just out right cruel. Can anyone imagine sitting in your home – which is considered the safest place – watching tv or reading a book and suddenly in a matter of seconds, you are incinerated and all that’s left are your ‘shadows’? Not only did it destroy one generation, but the radiation left lasting health issues with women who survived and were pregnant, or those who survived at all. They were completely deformed and mulilated not only physically but mentally. In Asian culture, you never give up. I’m talking N-E-V-E-R. Pride and tradition are two concepts in Asian culture that are indeed worth death and reiterated much more growing up than in other cultures. (Yes, I am actually Asian) The idea that the Japanese had to turn into America’s little b****es was morally degrading and humiliating to a culturally rich nation.
However, from a non moral stand point, it was certainly the most efficient way to end the war. And as stated in the post, from a Utilitarianism point of view, this is the best thing you could do for your country. President Truman and his cabinet and colleagues sacrificed how they will be remembered forever in history for the sake of this country to have all the power and peace it has today. Their names stand slightly tainted because of ending the massive war and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Machiavelli would give Truman a pat on the back or a high five for doing this with absolutely no guilt. To Machiavelli, this proved that Truman was strong and not made weak by moral obligations.
In short, there is no way to answer that question unless you address the human compassion that comes with such a devastating historical event. At that place in time, our President, who the majority voted for, felt it was justified.
I don’t if it is ever okay to say that it is right to kill thousands and thousands of innocent civilians. It’s also hard to say that this was a utilitarian decisions because was it really helping the majority of the people?? It’s a hard topic to discuss and try to rationalize. I know I could never make a decision like that and the government should definitely be responsible for making that decision. On the other hand, it seems almost scary that a few people have the power to make one decision that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
I agree completely with this post 100%. With the US dropping the bomb, the ends did justify the means immensely. I especially agree with your point that dropping the bomb showed the rest of the world the very negative effects of it. To answer your concluding question was it wrong for the US to develop the bomb in the first place, I say absolutely not. My reasoning is that the bomb, even if not used, instills a fear in every other country just knowing that we have it. It is very Machiavellian based in the sense that the US as well as other countries are using them as a fear tactic. For example Kim Jong-il’s harvesting of nuclear power has the entire globe in fear of what he may do with them. Thus, no one is messing with North Korea right now.
Quick note:
~220,000 Japanese killed by the atomic bombings
~1 million estimated American casualties (out of 5,000,000 deployed soldiers) had war without the bomb had continued, plus those of allies . . .
Stimson, Henry, L. “The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb” in Harper’s Magazine, Volume 194, February 1947, pp 97-107
This is always a very interesting and controversial debate. Some historical commentators mention the fact that history is written by the victors. I seem to remember one author who said that if Nazi Germany had dropped an atomic bomb on the US during the war and if the Allies still won, then the commanders who dropped the bomb would have been tried for war crimes.