Can Weapons Of Mass Destruction Be Justified?

On the 6th and 9th of August, 1945, the United States of America dropped the Atomic Bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of these bombs brought a quick end to World War 2, yet caused extensive damage to the two Japanese cities. There have often been disputes as to whether the USA was justified in the dropping of the atomic bombs because of the damage they caused, not only to the cities, but to the people of Japan as well. Many people believe that the USA should not have dropped the bombs because of the damage they caused, and they also claim that Japan was already defeated. However, Japan did not surrender, and prolonging the war was not an option for America, as it believed it would cause even more casualties, not only to American troops, but to Japan as well. Thus the USA was justified in dropping the bombs on Japan.

The pressing question still lingers: Was the United States justified in using the Atomic Bomb against Japan during WWII? World War II stands as the bloodiest and deadliest war of all time. It involved more than thirty countries and resulted in over fifty million civilian and military deaths. It lasted six years, beginning with Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939. As the Allied Powers (mainly the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union) and the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were in direct conflict with each other, many wonder if the cost of victory was too extreme. In late 1941, the process of creating the world’s first, most deadly weapon began. The production of the first atomic bomb was code named “the Manhattan Project.” After months of production, August 6, 1945, America dropped the “Little Boy” bomb on Hiroshima, wiping out ninety percent of the city. August 9, 1945, just three days after the devastation of the first bomb, America dropped the “Fat Man” bomb on Nagasaki. Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was not necessary, nor justified in ending World War II. Due to the fact that America targeted heavily civilian populated cities (with limited military value), that Japan was in a position of surrender before the bomb was dropped, and the fact that the U.S. did not give enough time for Japan to process the devastation of the first bomb before the second in Nagasaki shows that America’s decision to drop the atomic bomb was entirely unjustified.

1. Long after World War II and the use of the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a great debate remains. It seems that there are two main potential arguments as to why the bombs were detonated and whether or not they were even necessary to begin with. The first theory surrounds the notion of the national security interests of the United States. In this theory essentially, Truman’s actions had been defended and justified as necessary in order to quickly end the war with U.S. causalities kept to a minimum.

Throughout history, many people have debated over the ethics of war and peace which lead to the creation of the just war theory. There have been a number of wars in the past and even in today’s world that have been proven to be unjustified by the means of this theory. Any war in my opinion, is hard to justify due to the violence, destructiveness, the nature of humans doing during war, and the impact it has on humans and the world. However, I have chosen to discuss why America’s decision to jump in to World War II was justified and by proving it by using the just war theory, mainly focusing on jus ad bellum.

The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was completely justified in both cause and impact. An intense weapon was necessary to force a quick Japanese surrender. The bomb saved thousands upon thousands of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost if the war continued or an invasion occurred. The bomb was the only way to end the suffering of the millions who were being held captive by the Japanese oppressor. The weapon of mass destruction also sent a powerful message to the shaky Soviet allies. The choice to use the atomic bomb was justified because it compelled a Japanese surrender, saved countless lives, served as retribution for the sufferings of many people, and

Inventions have been accomplished due to the vast technology that is in place. Technology has led to the advancement of warfare in most parts of the world. The same technology has resulted in inventions that range from gunpowder to the atom that is splitting the environments across the borders. These inventions have led to some countries being able to leap over other weaker countries when it comes to war. Among all these inventions, the atomic bomb stands out as the most lethal weapon. The splitting atom has launched the whole world through its conventional warfare that led the world to change their perspectives to ushering in a new era of the nuclear age. The world atomic bomb is so vivid to the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (Madaras 99). When one mentions these two places and the splitting atom, a person is able to picture a city that was torn apart and the masses of people that were killed by the United States ' actions of using the bomb in these two cities. Thus, this paper tries to examine if it was necessary for the United States to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to bring an end to World War II.

Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.

Is the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in war ethical? Is there an appropriate time to use them? A dilemma will later be presented for consideration. Different ethical theories can either support or oppose the use of CBW depending on the circumstances. However, chemical, biological and nuclear agents are dangerous, uncontrollable and undifferentiating weapons of mass destructions. Actions must be taken to see that there are no future instances of use during war. However, before one discusses the legal and ethical issues involved with CBW, one must understand what chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are and how they function.

The conflict between the Allies and the Axis was a horrific and deadly one, which consisted of genocide and mass bombings. Innocent citizens were killed with the estimated sixty million casualties, which lead to the question as to the morality of the different actors—Germany, Japan, England and America— in WWII. In order to truly assess their guilt, meaning their moral innocence, each country will be measured upon the morality of their intent and execution of the different controversial mass killings that Germany (the Holocaust), Japan (Nanking), and the Allied forces (Dresden and Hiroshima) took part in. This hierarchy of evil can be judged upon how Japan’s tyranny and the Allies’ area bombing compare to the genocide performed by Germany. Similarly, these countries will be judged on the whether these different acts were premeditated versus in response to another act, as well as the proportionality to which these acts were carried out. This measurement of evil places each party on an overall scale, which depicts the total guilt that each country or countries deserve. WWII exemplifies that while war is an unavoidable aspect of human nature, there is no such thing as a just war. Similarly, while there is a definite hierarchy of morality between the different actors of WWII, each of the countries at play are immoral in their intent and execution of the attacks on opposing countries.

Was the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the American Government unavoidably necessary? This is what Samuel J. Walker intends to uncover in his publication. His argument is that the justifications made by the American Government after the dropping of the Atomic bombs were gross exaggerations and that the reasoning behind their ultimate decision is complicated. He contends that because of their lack of knowledge of the actual damage that the force of the

Are Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) able to be used ethically in time of war without consequences? A question with many different answers from all over the world, from children, adults, and elders alike. Today, we will review quite a few things about WMD’s, such as what uniquely defines the ability of WMD’s from that of the average weapons. We will also view who created them, and why they created them in the first place. Furthermore, we will look into what was stated earlier: Are WMD’s able to be used ethically in time of war without consequence? We’ll answer this and more, with the paragraphs ahead.

The dropping of the atomic bombs was so devastating because no one saw it coming. Although, the bombs shortened the war the lives of thousands were taken including men, women, and innocent children. The United States did send the Japanese a warning stating what they were going to do, but the citizens refused to pay attention to the warnings.When the bombings took place there were a lot of different arguments that will be discussed in this paper. These events took place on August 6, 1945, and August 9, 1945, and about 225,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many individuals have shared their opinions stating why they are for or against the bomb.

On August 6, 1945, after forty-four months of increasingly brutal fighting in the Pacific, an American B-29 bomber loaded with a devastating new weapon flew in the sky over Hiroshima, Japan waiting for a signal. Minutes later the signal was given, that new weapon, the atomic bomb, was released. Its enormous destructive energy detonated in the sky, killing one hundred thousand Japanese civilians instantly. Three days later, on August 9, 1945, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb over the city of Nagasaki, with similarly devastating results, killing seventy-thousand Japanese citizens. The following week, Japan’s emperor addressed his country over the radio to announce the decision was made to surrender. At that moment World War II had finally come to its dramatic conclusion. Even though some people defend the atomic bombings, because of a weak Japan refusing to give up, the U.S. could’ve chosen a less populated area of Japan to bomb, like the coast to warn the Japanese. Claiming thousands of innocent lives, prove that the U.S. unnecessarily dropped the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Amid the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly, Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Permanent Observer of the Holy See addressed that “The Holy See recommends therefore that discussions on weapons of mass destruction go beyond the traditional categories of nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons to include devastatingly powerful conventional weapons used to perpetrate war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Niccolo Machiavelli’s political treatise, The Qualities of a Prince, leads one to question if the ends justify the means because of Machiavelli’s assertion of using immoral means in order to achieve a morally right end result. When Machiavelli wrote the treatise in 1532, he claimed that one of situations in which it was necessary to use unethical means was in military manners. Over four hundred years later, the United States questioned if reducing the casualties of Americans by expediting the end of the war justified dropping an atomic bomb on Japan. Using the atomic bomb refutes Machiavelli’s claim that the ends justify the means because reducing the number of American casualties does not justify the deaths of Japanese civilians, mental health problems experienced by the survivors, and the destruction of two cities which prompted many to evacuate their homes.