Ethics & Politics of War: Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Term Paper Sample)

History Final Paper
Betty Granville
Institution of Affiliation
Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
It was the death of America’s president Franklin Roosevelt that paved way for the Harry Truman regime in 1945. Less than a month later he was to decide on a move to tame Japan with an atomic bomb as the main option, even though it could have been considered that Truman made a hasty decision, he acted in full capacity and gave a nod to the move as one of the measures to putting an end the World War II. Just as planned the bomb was dropped causing damages so severe that it was estimated that a total of 242,000 people succumbed to its effects. Japan having no better option was forced to surrender.
The move of the Truman administration was commended by many and it some was viewed as perfect solution considering that many lives would have been lost was it not for this move. A post by Fortune Magazine Poll (1945, P.42) showed that only 5% of those who were interviewed had an opinion against the bombing while 54% supported the move whole-heartedly. There was a lot that even felt like the two bombing were just not enough and that more bombs should have been dropped on Japan before the country gave in. Those of contrary opinion argued that instead of the atomic bomb United States should have opted for mild measures such as; bombing of cities with less severe explosives, large-scale invasion into Japan or even the placement of sanctions against the country in order to provoke them to submission. Since the time of the incident there certainly has been a never ending debate on which ought to have been the best approach to taming Japan. This piece of work takes sides with the move the former American president made and does not support those who associate His move to ‘war crime.’ The best description to Truman’s decision can be a rational and a reasonable choice.
First and foremost according to the dictionary the word reasonable can best be described as sensible, rational, governed by reasoning in acting or thinking, moderate and fair (Funk & wagnall’s, Text ed). The time in history with which Truman lived left no option for a better choice to go for because Japan was characterized by a do or die attitude that no matter what befell them they would never give in. This was evident in scenarios of battles whereby even after the nation lost it always seemed not to give up. On the American side there was mounting pressure to end the war now that they had emerged victorious in Europe. Truman was indeed laden with a huge burden such that unless he employed wit in deciding of what was best then tragedy would befall his administration. As a result he settled for the decision to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
We rule out the description of bombing Japan as mere war by first determining how reasonable the decision made was however, by the fact that we consider a choice reasonable it does not warrant it being considered just. And in order to come to such a conclusion we have to balance competing interests. In this scenario to determine whether the decision was just the “Just War” Theory and Natural Law Tradition will be used. Some argue that the decision chosen was contrary to the principles of “discrimination” and “proportionality” which are a part of the Just War Theory. According to Amstutz (2005, 110) the Just War Theory is founded on the basis that, a country’s decision for war is “legitimate when it serves the legitimate purpose.”Moreover, under this theory war between two countries is not viewed as evil instead is recognized instrument of conduct between the two. Therefore, when adopting the Just War Theory it is imperative to ensure that the decision settled for is in tandem with principles of morality.
The theory is divided into two main segments: “jus ad bellum, the justice of going to war, and the jus in bello, justice in war time” (Amstutz 2005, 2010). Both segments have conditions to be followed for a decision to be deemed just.
According to Professor Mark Amstutz jus ad bellum can better be understood as:
1. Just Cause: The only legitimate justification for war is to deter aggression, to defend against unjust attack, or to right a grievous wrong. . . . Aggression is immoral and gives rise to a just cause to resist by force.
2. Competent authority: The use of force is morally permissible only when it is legitimate, that is, authorized by government.
3. Right intention: A war is just only if it seeks to restore a just peace. The goal of war must be to right the evil that justifies war in the first instance.
4. Limited objectives: A war is just only if its goals are limited. An unconditional, unlimited war of attrition is morally unacceptable. Additionally, goals and means must be proportionate.
5. Last resort: Before a state can legitimately resort to war, it must exhaust all peaceful means.
6. Reasonable hope of success: The use of force against an aggressor must have a reasonable chance of success. A war that is unlikely to achieve its limited goals is immoral. (Amstutz 2005, 111)
Whereas the criteria under jus in bello are:
1. Discrimination: Military force must be applied only against the political leadership and military forces of the state. Every effort must be made to discriminate between combatants and noncombatants, soldiers and civilians, to minimize civilian casualties. Direct attacks against civilian targets, such as neighborhoods, hospitals, and schools, are morally impermissible. Indiscriminate destruction of cities is similarly impermissible.
1 Proportionality: The destruction inflicted by military forces in war must be proportional to the goals they are seeking to realize. An indiscriminate war of attrition that seeks to eliminate the enemy altogether is not morally justified. The goal should be to use the minimum level of violence to achieve the limited aims of a war.
Amstutz points out that under the discrimination criterion civilian casualties are allowed on condition that “they are an unintentional by-product of the intentional targeting of military forces” (2005, 111nb). Since the American bombing is within the American political and military conduct during war (jus in bello) It is empty to argue that America’s declaration of war (jus ad bellum) against Japan was wrong because the latter did so in a bid to defend itself from the pearl Harbor Attack.
A second point of argument is centered on the discrimination and proportionality criteria in jus in bello or War Conduct Law. Takaki (1995) reiterates that it is easier to judge the credibility a country’s decision to be engaged in war than it is when it practically is involved in combat. Part of the argument is that at the event of war there is always an increase in the number of casualties for the nations involved as a result it provokes the nations involved to use every inch of power within their means in order to cripple its foe. Moreover, during the war the two nations were involved in demeaning insults against each other and this provoked the United States even more
Iraq /Afghanistan Wars
The War on Terror
Just like in the case of bombing in Japan by America, lately there have been conflicting opinions on the moral legitimacy of the American involvement in war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Statistics by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq shows that in the year 2016 death of civilians totaled 6,492 while the 16 years war on terror in Afghanistan reported 3,498 casualties in the same year (Andrew, 2017, Para. 14). Historically the war on terror was ushered in during President Bush’s administration in the 2002 National Security Strategy, under the pretext of pre-emptive self defense. This approach was followed by a huge debate in the world of Political theories, the “Just War” theory being the major center of argument.
This segment constitutes an analysis of the premises upon which the doctrine of pre-emption is built that make it legitimate. Even though there have been members who are against pre-emption and consider it illegal quite good number have embraced it with the argument that it is a part of the international law used to cater for the modern acts of terrorism. Moreover, the reasoning is that the contemporary society has new forms of terror therefore demanding a change in the existing old laws. Pre-emption as depicted by Iraq and Afghanistan scenarios reminds of the beginning of contemporary International law. Previously it was that before a country reacts to an adversary it first needed to wait to be attacked. As a pioneer of the pre-emptive approach the United States has been a great believer of the application of pre-emptive approach to stop an adversary that is deemed a huge threat to its security.
The pre-emptive/anticipatory approach has always brought about a challenge to the Just War theory, international lawyers alike. Richard Tuck (2014) argues that the pre-emption doctrine is “clearly a morally fraught matter, as by definition the aggressor has not been harmed, and his judgment and the necessity of his actions might well be called into question by both the victim and the neutral observer.” On the contrary international lawyers hold that self-defense should be allowed since it does not add up for a nation to wait for an attack so that it can avenge. The famous Daniel Webster too supports that pre-emptive self defense is legal and necessary in the event, that there is limited option to choose from. The Bush doctrine advanced further by stating that “the US will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression.” (Hew, 2005, P. 52)
Pre-emption and Imperialism
In as much as proponents of the pre-emptiv...