The Ethical Dilemma in the Bombing of Hiroshima The concept of war brings about questions about the ethics of the actions of the military at the battlefields. There have been instances where the military men have been seen to be unethical in the way they carry out acts especially against innocent civilians…
This happened at a time when the intensity of air raids between the two countries had escalated thus leading to war strategies that had to be adopted to defeat the enemy. Although the Japanese had been militarily defeated by the United States army and were considering surrender the United States officials went ahead with the test of the atomic bomb at New Mexico and saw the deadly results. The officials’ in charge took charge and the then president Truman allowed the bomb to be released at Hiroshima. It became the among the world’s deadliest bomb attack that ruined lives and properties. The first ethical debate concerning the bombing of Hiroshima, and the subsequent bombing of Nagasaki, is the fact that the war could have been won without the bombing. From an analysis of the views of people n the era, it is evident that the bombing was not supported by the majority of people. Winnacker (26) states that Professor Albert Einstein remarked leading physicists in the era urged the American government not to drop the two bombs that effectively ended the world war. Einstein stated that the War Department was convinced that, with the casualties suffered by the Japanese, their ultimate surrender was not long in coming, therefore, the bombing was not necessary. ...
Using the theory of consequentialism, America’s action in the bombing of Hiroshima can be condemned by stating that the government used the principle of personal egoism. The principle of personal egoism states that an individual should always act in his own long-term interests and disregard the interests of any other individuals. In this regard, the United States only considered the interests of its soldiers, in which case they decided to kill innocent civilians in order to end the war. An analysis of the statements of the Secretary of State when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima indicates that the government had taken into consideration the views of scientists and war analysts on the issue in Japan (Bruce 42). The government had been advised that the total surrender of Japan would be a matter of a few weeks, and the bomb did not need to be dropped. However, Secretary Simpson stated that the best way to totally end the war was through a ‘complete and utter’ destruction of Japan’s military might. Secretary Simpson went on to state that despite the efforts of the Japanese government to surrender the war, the United States government still had to take its own interests before the interests of the Japanese government. The Secretary stated that the Japanese government had gone as far as to approach the Soviet government in a bid to start negotiations with the Allies on the end of the war. This fact can be analyzed using the utilitarianism argument, which states that the best act is the one that produces the highest ratio of good to evil in every action. Using the utilitarianism debate, the United States would be ethically justified for their actions in bombing Hiroshima and ...
Cite this document
(“Ethical Dlemma Invovling the Bombing of Hiroshima Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/philosophy/65078-ethical-dilemma-invovling-the-bombing-of-hiroshima
(Ethical Dlemma Invovling the Bombing of Hiroshima Essay)
“Ethical Dlemma Invovling the Bombing of Hiroshima Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/philosophy/65078-ethical-dilemma-invovling-the-bombing-of-hiroshima.
The United Kingdom, Republic of China and United States of America together had sent a Potsdam Declaration to Japan asking it to surrender itself against the backdrop of the Pacific War. However, on the non compliance of the same, as mentioned in the treaty, two nuclear weapons, under the purview of the Manhattan Project, were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, creating mass destruction and killing thousands of people in Japan.
Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II is a controversial issue. There are some critics who are not in favor of and even condemn such act. For them, it was not the appropriate move to end the war between the USA and Japan in 1945. The death of civilians in the Second World War could remarkably point out the inhumane approach.
The author presents the history of the bomb and the government, emphasizing on the role of the president during that time. There is a concentrated focus on the different types of battles, mainly sea, air and land. In addition, the picture of the Japanese and Americans has a clear illustration in the cautiously written history.
If there is a siege or a bombardment, there should be all steps taken to protect hospitals, charities, places where the wounded are gathered, as well as cultural artifacts. The second document is the “Law and Customs on War on Land (Hague IV) October 18, 1907.”1 This states that undefended towns, villages, dwellings and buildings cannot be attacked.
This tactic was designed to destroy whole towns and cities in order to both destroy infrastructure and generally demoralize the population. The bombing of Dresden on February 13-15, 1945 (ironically including the night of Valentine's Day) killed from 30,000 (Taylor, 2005) to 100,000 people (Irving, 1966), depending upon which estimate is being used.
The controversy surrounding the decisions has raised many questions that are being deliberated over by the scholars across the globe. But whatever the excruciating circumstances and the palpable causes which led to the atomic bombing of the two cities of Japan, these attacks perpetrated by United States, on 6th August and 9th August would remain the blackest days, in the lives of the civilized world.
True, they were at the receiving end at the time the bombs were dropped. However, attitudinally, they were far from calling it quits. Even if they were politically divided on the question of war, the hotheads were holding the rest of the nation to ransom.
Pearl Harbor bombing was the first attack of its magnitude after the initial years of the formation of the US. The initial reaction of the Americans to the traumatic defeat of the US hovered around anger and incredulity (Slackman, 1990). A day after the attack, the
Murray and Millet have summarized them by saying that “strategic bombing played a relatively unimportant part in winning World War II”. In spite of this criticism, war analysts like Murray and Millet have pointed out certain impacts of strategic bombing campaign on the ability of Japan and Germany to wage war.
In my opinion, the Korean survivors had the strongest personalities while the foreign survivors had the least. I sympathize with the Koreans because at that time they were denied health benefits while the foreign survivors were shielded from
1 Pages(250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Ethical Dlemma Invovling the Bombing of Hiroshima for FREE!