Jon Stenger
December 9, 2015
International Relations
Was
Hiroshima Just?
During
class we discussed the idea of the Just War Theory. We talked about what it
meant for a war to be just, and if the actions taken by states are justifiable.
Or what is considered justifiable in terms of preemptive strikes or
preventative strikes. As we discussed this idea throughout history, we came
across WWII and the actions committed throughout that period. As we analyzed
the end of the war, we contemplated if the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki.
Looking at the Just War Theory, I believe that the bombings that ended the war
in Japan was a justifiable move.
It
is arguable that the bombings were not justifiable, given the immense civilian
casualties and the devastating damage caused to the two cities. The United
States could have elected to fight out the war and invade the mainland of
Japan. This move would have been incredibly costly in both coin and lives on
both sides. By attacking an unprepared population at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese
opened up a door that left little room for caution in the US’s response.
Therefore, once they were on the brink of the Japanese mainland, it was a
possibility to try and end the war with a massive attack on a both military and
civil population. Although tragic, it was effective at putting an end to the
Japanese resistance in the war. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor opened up
the possibility for such a devastating attack.
The
main reasoning behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the reasoning
for its justification, lies in the fact that it was much less costly to make
this attack than it would have been to invade the mainland. The American
government decided that the cost of American soldier deaths in an invasion
would be too high, that it outweighed the negatives of bombing a civilian
population. With the potential to end the war immediately, it made sense to
make the attack instead of invading Japan. Also, the Japanese had a code of
honor that required them to fight until death and never surrender. With this
belief, it would prolong the war and increase the death toll to both Americans
and Japanese. By bombing these two cities, many American lives were saved, and
the war was immediately ended. Therefore, the attack is justifiable, even
though it had devastating effects on Japan.
The
bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiable because it ended the war
immediately, and saved many American lives, who were fighting a reactionary war
against an enemy who had carried out a covert attack on our military base of
Pearl Harbor. Although the attack was devastating and tragic, it was reasonable
given the costs of the alternative. According to the Just War Theory and my
personal opinions, the bombings in Japan were just.
Your argument depends upon a single choice - atom bomb or ground invasion. Were there other options? Might these options change the moral calculus so to speak?
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting blog post. I liked your conclusion paragraph, but I agree with the previous comment. Do you think that there were other options that the US could have taken. Thanks!
-Baylie
Hi Jon!
ReplyDeleteGood post! I agree with you that the bombings were just, but only in the eyes of America. The after affects of the bombings can still be seen in the two Japanese cities today. It is also terrible that the war got to the point where thousands of Japanese civilians had to be killed in order for America and the Allies to win. In regards to Prof. Shirk's comment, I do not think that there was another option. A ground invasion would have resulted in more American casualties. The fastest and most efficient way to end the war was an atomic bomb. Obviously, most Americans would be biased to this answer, but sending group troops would have just led to a longer, more drawn out war. However, this option could be considered more "moral" since less civilians would have died in the case of sending ground troops into Japan. I do not think that the atomic bomb was the most "moral" option to end WWII.
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI agreed with your argument that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were just. It is easy to forget that the Japanese military would not surrender, making the brutal use of force (and the repeated use of it) necessary to end the war. Although I understand it was moral compromise that led to so many civilian deaths, the outcome was far better in this instance rather than the alternatives with ground troops. If we had simply continued to bomb with non-nuclear force, the stakes would not have been high enough to get the Japanese to give up.