THE ATOMIC BOMB - Essay Example

At the end of the study, reasons are provided as to why standing armies’ war cannot be similar to war waged by small armed groups. On the 6th day of August 1945, an American B-29 bomber dropped two atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, bringing the Second World War to an end. The dusk of the war, however introduced a new dawn of controversies regarding deliberate attack of civilians in wars, whether the use of the atomic bomb was necessary, and whether war is a practice only reserved for standing armies and nations as opposed to small armed groups.

Concisely, America transformed the style of war on the planet in that prior to the Nagasaki/Hiroshima bombings; civilians had never been portrayed as participants or targets in war. Further debates emerged that the atomic bomb claimed fewer lives than what the actual War could have cost had it been allowed to extend beyond 1945. Owing to the new style of warfare introduced by the atomic bombs’ use, warfare on the planet has taken different paths in which case civilians are now part of wars, terrorism is portrayed as a justifiable practice by some, and war is now split between standing armies and small armed groups.

In the light of these, the following discussion text will argue why deliberate attacks on civilians are illegitimate acts of war, that terrorism will never be a justified act, and that the practice of war should remain a preserve of nations and standing armies only; contrary to what the post-Hiroshima/ Nagasaki bombings implied. No definition of war would ever make sense if the terms “armed” or “weapons” did not feature anywhere in them. This is because war is a form of struggle against rivals as they strive to exercise victory over the other.

As such, war has to be against an armed rival with another armed rival. In the event that one rival is unarmed, whatever struggle ensues thereafter takes an overly different definition from war. It may be