Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola Essay

The reason that the atomic bomb was considered to be very effective was because it had the capability to wipe out an entire city, including troops, men, women, and children. Would an act of this capacity be considered as moral? Scholars dispute the morality of Truman’s decision, some arguing it was warranted by Japan’s aggression and refusal to surrender, and other scholars suggesting that the assaults were the moral equivalent of the Nazi holocaust (109). I postulate that to annihilate an entire city of people in one fell swoop is something that neither man nor nation should be able to decide, even if they conceive the other party to be deserving of such a punishment in retribution for their actions.

The bombs were considered a winning weapon and blocked out painful questions about the moral consequences of this technology. They refer to America’s actions against Hiroshima pushed them into moral inversion because of their avoidance of moral and historical responsibility. Lifton and Mitchell’s remarks suggest that atomic bombs not only kill instantaneously, but it also harbours deadly generational potentials. Whereas other weapons at the time did not possess such deadly power. Hence, the reality of radiation made it hard for Americans to continue to rationalize this

They came, unwarned. On the 7th of December 1941, the Japanese executed a full-fledged attack on Pearl Harbor. They mercilessly created havoc, with attacks that caused the sinking of eighteen American ships, as well as 170 aircrafts. The casualties were dreadful, with 1,177 of those lost lives had been of the crewmen. The very next day, President Roosevelt declared war on Japan, and thus the United States’ involvement of World War II. Americans of every state were absolutely enraged and bent on their will for vengeance against the Asian country. Within the shadows of galvanized America, Robert Oppenheimer had set his infamous Manhattan Project into action. This project was so disclosed that only a limited number of men truly knew of its purpose. The clandestine project held prior securities to the point in which famous scientists had to use codenames in order to visit Los Alamos, even wives were kept in the dark, and only key scientists could bring their wives along with them. (Source D) This project had been the discreet creation of the Atomic Bombs. Time and time again, this topic had never really dissipated, its controversial who, what and whys prompting generations to debate its palpable purpose. Was the aim really focused for the “good of all?” Was it for America’s self-preservation and wish to promptly put an end to all of the suffering? Many Americans to this day still believe and argue for the usefulness of the atomic bombings, that the droppings were justified.

The necessity of the atomic bombs have long been debated in America. Although they did contribute to stopping the war, Americans still wonder if murdering Japanese civilians was a necessary means to an end, or if it could have been avoided. Some people believe that the war would have ended without using the bombs. Others believe they were the sole purpose that the war finally ended. Many people were involved with bringing the bombs to fruition, such as the scientists, the government and military leaders, and the very teams that flew them to their targets. Then the President addressed the situation and American citizens spoke their minds. All of these people had their own thoughts on whether the bombs were needed. In this essay, the opinions on the atomic bomb’s necessity will be reviewed by presenting both the pros and cons from a variety of sources.

Thank God for the Atomic Bomb by Paul Fussel is a provocative essay about the opposing views on the two atomic bombs that America dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan ending World War 2, the most defecating event to happen in history. Over a few million-innocent people died that day, and thousands of the survivors and their offspring have suffered or died since of the result of the chemicals used in the bomb. Fussel was a purple hearted second lieutenant military man frontline in the war. He writes about the difference of opinion of using the atomic bomb from two views: those with firsthand combat with the Japanese and those without firsthand combat experience with the Japanese. Paul Fussel’s essay has the primary aim of persuading the reader that the Atomic bomb was the best choice as a means to end the war and he uses the primary mode of evaluation to persuade. His secondary aim is referential, to inform and explain to those who had no firsthand experience in that war and he uses the secondary mode of description to do this, citing from those against the bomb and those with their hands in the daily blood.

Harry S. Truman once said in his speech, “The atom bomb was no 'great decision.' It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness” (“Biography of Harry Truman”). It didn’t matter whether the decision to build and drop the bomb was worthy or not, it was just another weapon for righteousness.

I agree with you, Erin. The fundamental aspect of man that makes him marvelous, according to Pico, is that he is essentially free to choose his own destiny. I loved the question Pico posed: “Why, I asked, should we not admire the angels themselves and the beatific choirs more” (28)? After all, what makes man more marvelous than the angels they themselves praise? Following this, Pico made an important distinction between mankind and both the creatures that dwell in Heaven and on Earth: “The nature of all other creatures is defined and restricted within laws which We have laid down; you, by contrast, impeded by no such restrictions, may, by your own free will, to whose custody We have assigned you, trace for yourself the lineaments of your own nature” (29). Here, we see that through personal thought, decisions and actions, man can, as Erin has quoted, descend to a lower form of life or ascend to a divine life (29). According to Pico, not even the highly-regarded angels posses this free-will. Therefore, now we begin to understand that it is not a matter of hierarchical rank that makes man marvelous, yet the unique ability humans have has to shape their life. This is why there is nothing more marvelous than man.

On the clear morning of August 6, 1945 in Hiroshima, Japan, the world was hit with a total shock, that went down in history as a day for the history books. This day, the city of Hiroshima was blasted by the world’s first atomic bomb, which sent the grounds quaking, and leaving thousands dead. The debates for years since the bombing were having us all wonder if the attack was a military necessity or not. Considering both sides of the argument, it is clear to me that the bombing was the best plan for ending the world war. The use of the bomb saved more lives than it took.

September 1, 1939, marked the beginning of World War II. The war was long fought involving the three axis powers and several allied powers. Among those were Japan and the United States following Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 (Praino, 2015). Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost amongst the battles from each side of the war. In 1939, Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi fled to America and informed the elected officials that Germany had discovered new outbreaks in splitting atoms, which was one step closer to the creation of destructive weapons for the Axis power. With that news, American facilities launched a program that would later be codenamed “The Manhattan Project” which was the birthplace of the first nuclear atomic reactions. After the first reaction was created, it was a vicious cycle from there that continued to escalate. With the war reaching an all-time high in casualties, Truman was faced with a big decision as the programs had finally experienced breakthroughs to the atomic bomb. He could choose to remain in conventional war tactics and continue to prolong the war until Japan was ready to surrender, or attempt to save the lives of many American soldiers and citizens by dropping the atomic bombs onto two major cities in Japan (Praino, 2015). By choosing the latter, an estimated 225,000 Japanese lives were lost (Perkins, 2016) and the ethical merits of Truman’s decision are still questioned today while some views remain confident in the choice.

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.

The nature of the Atomic Bomb created a global and theoretical set of stakeholders that few other ethical dilemmas reach. In many ways this use of nuclear technology created the Cold War and the global fear of a nuclear Armageddon. At that time every citizen of the globe feared how the use of nuclear weapons would harm them and their world. The future is also a stakeholder in this conversation. The effects of nuclear fallout were not well understood at the time. Nuclear aftermath could last for decades and even longer, effecting the health and livelihood of all living things for generations to come. The information that could be collected and research opportunities created after a nuclear weapon detonation would be studied for centuries and will change medicine and research forever. Future citizens and scientists were also stakeholders in this decision.

His many works include the “Palazzo di Parte Guelfa,” the “Rotonda degli Angeli,” and the “Ponte a Mare at Pisa.” There is however some debate to whether Brunelleschi was responsible for the original designs for the Pitti Palace. After his death he was buried in Santa Maria del Fiore. However, his tomb was not discovered until 1972 (Lombroso 5).

In the Romano Pitesti case, Tickton-Jones’ Management Team is faced with a situation that is not altogether uncommon in the business world, in that some employees feel that members of the Sales staff are being given “special” treatment by the company. Romano’s actions have probably not been as bad as what has been described to Management, but due to the fact that employees are still trying to find their place in the new, combined company, any hint of “unfairness” is immediately put under a microscope by other employees, and therefore, Management will have to take some sort of action, in order to show the other employees that their concerns are being taken seriously.

Some regard the atomic bomb as “the thank God for the atom bomb”. This places God on the U.S. side and regards the bombs as our saving grace. This bomb forced the Japanese to surrender which in turn proved the U.S. to be the heroes who saved the American’s lives.1 The Americans intended on ending the war but did not expect to end it with such a large number of casualties. The results of the atomic bomb and how it effected the Japanese people both emotionally and physically will be addressed. “The bombs marked both an end and a beginning—the end of an appalling global conflagration in which more than 50 million people were killed and the beginning of the nuclear arms race and a new world in which

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)