Even though he made this decision as Japanese government did not respond to the Potsdam Declaration, it was still possible to negotiate with Japan’s side without dropping the atomic bombs. In today’s American society, it is considered that his decision to use the atomic bombs enabled the country to save their soldiers. On top of that, Japanese government never raised any protest against the United States for the use of atomic bombs. Nevertheless, as Hasegawa (2005) states, this cannot be longer justified because it is more of a moral issue. More importantly, it is doubtful whether President Truman was sure about the effects of atomic bombs.
Although an ultimatum was indeed given to Japan at Potsdam, they were not informed of the weapon of mass destruction the United States possessed. It will never be known for sure, but the knowledge that America had an atomic bomb might have caused the Japanese to surrender once and for all. Even if they did not surrender, the Japanese authorities would have at least had a chance to evacuate their citizens from the cities that were the intended targets. Instead, Truman kept the atomic bomb a secret, so that he could try it out. Also, the bomb could have been dropped in a much less populated city, in an effort to save lives.
She said that torture could never be American policy, ‘period.’ Barack Obama said that there were all sorts of hypothetic emergency situations that could arise, but that he would rather make a decision at the time than making an advanced judgement. In America, the TBS debate in politics brings attention to the need of better intelligence and detention policies.
Ethically speaking, the dropping of the nuclear weapon onto the two cities is contrary to jus in bello - justice in war. In Walzer’s text Just and Unjust Wars , it says that the Japanese “never posed such a threat to peace and freedom as the Nazis had”, on creating and using an atomic bomb as a weapon. This means that the Americans have attacked a country that never threatened to use an atomic bomb, which violates Wink’s idea of the “just cause”. Furthermore, the destruction at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki either killed or wounded thousands of non-combatant civilians, whose rights were taken away. This also opposes jus in bello, as “immunity” (Wink, p.133) between the military and the civilians was not made, and therefore, it may be argued that the US
The advantages of the withdrawal from the Korean Peninsula are; this will allow the United States to use their time, money, and effort somewhere else rather than putting in effort and not getting anything in response. Whereas, they can use that money and military troops to invest in their own security and to improve their nation. The disadvantages of the withdrawal from the Korean Peninsula are; by withdrawing, this way the United States grant North Korea to endure with their nuclear program. This will be a possibility that North Korea will sell their nuclear weapons, and might settle in the hands of rebellious countries or terrorists. Nevertheless, this action could be seen as a symbol of weakness, especially in the eyes of North Korea.
In actual fact Hitler and Stalin believed they had prevented the outbreak of war with the signing of the Pact not brought it on (Taylor 1963). The Pact convinced Hitler that the Western Powers could not now intervene to save Poland. To the Western Powers the Pact proved how unreliable the Soviets were. However, Britain had already based their strategy on the assumption that the USSR would remain isolated from the conflict, or even if they did get involved their military would be of little help to anyone, thus had no influence the decision to go to war. Of course if Britain and France had reached a firm agreement with the Soviets, Hitler might well have held back from invading Poland and have resorted to diplomatic and economic pressure instead (Overy
Imperialism can not be seen as a horrible thing all the time. These countries often do get protection from us, if ever threaten. My intent for American imperialism is for America to be put on the map. Some of my tactics will help America to do just that. Let us keep positive as American’s that our nationalism being spread for bigger and better things in these countries.
Sending arms to people that we believe democracy in, but not willing to use those arms (John F. Kennedy’s University of Washington Speech, on the 16th of November, 1961.). We can send people in the Middle East supplies and equipment, but we cannot send troops there to use them, but they there will have to use. Since we don’t want to go to War with the Soviet Union or someone else who’s Communist. Having Powerful weapons that are not as effective that our enemy has as well and we believe not just in our army, but in reason and right (John F. Kennedy’s University of Washington Speech, on the 16th of November, 1961.). Having the most powerful weapon in the world, as well as the Soviet Union has as well, cannot be outmatched so that we’ll only use for right and also in reasons while they will use in not for the rights and won’t have a reason why they used it.
Even though The United States’ use of the atomic bombs is justified relatively, they didn’t consider at the time the long term effects that the nuclear had on the people. The idea isn’t that they knew and decided to ignore it, they just weren’t aware of what new diseases can eventually occur of such materials: “Understanding the past requires pretending you don’t know the present. To conclude, Paul Fussell’s essay is very convincing. I believe that the idea of the atomic bomb as something the people would be thankful for is very challenging and yet Fussell, in my opinion, was able to gather all the main ideas behind his argument along with statistics and gave the people a new perspective for the ending of World War II.
A group of civilian leaders led by Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori hoped that the Soviet Union might mediate a settlement between the US and Japan since the Soviet Union and Japan had signed a five-year neutrality pact in 1941. Furthermore this could potentially benefit the Soviet Union since it’s in their interest to make sure that “the terms of the settlement were not too favorable towards the United States” (Wilson). However, US generals wouldn’t take the chance that the people in charge [Japanese militarists] would want to end the war peacefully especially since the US were hesitant to trust them since events like Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor that began the war (Takaki 32-34) and forcing American prisoners of war to walk almost 100 kilometers through the hot jungle with little food and water which resulted in death tolls upwards of 10,000 (Young 26). Furthermore, three highly respected military leaders — Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Leathy all thought that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was not needed militarily (Takaki
could have resulted to, instead of bombing, and sacrificing many civilians lives. “A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan’s leaders to quit without killing many people.” If a demonstration was arranged, perhaps through the Russians, it could have convinced Japan to surrender. The U.S. knew there were other options, yet they just didn’t want to result to them. If the U.S. did this alternative, not nearly as many people would have died.
As I was saying earlier a union of nations (and their people) can prevent so called irrational leader such as Hitler to never have that much power to influence another holocaust event. Even our current president Barrack
It is no doubt that politics evolve, as do the political leaders of our world and their individual viewpoints. Particularly their viewpoints on major global topics like use of the atomic bomb, and all other weapons of mass destruction. Out of all of the difficult decisions presidents are required to make, President Bush and President Truman had two of the hardest and handled them both in inevitably controversial ways, however these decisions shared both similarities and differences that affected the opinions on the use of all mass destruction weapons. In 1945 to 1953 Harry S Truman was president of the United States.
The Decision to Drop the Bomb In the Battle of Okinawa 1941, Japanese Kamikaze suicide pilots targeted the US in Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor. Over 2,400 American and British lives were taken from this world, an additional 1,178 wounded. The President of the United States, Harry Truman, was faced with an ethical dilemma of whether to use the atomic bomb against Japan that could end WWII. My goal is to try to answer this moral question using the philosophical views on the morality of Held, Kant, Aristotle, and Mill.
Truman and the A-Bomb The most powerful weapon America had in WWII, was also the most secret. The Atom Bomb was capable of wiping out an entire city with a blast radius of 3.5 miles. It was truly a killing machine. With such power comes the question, does anyone deserve such a fate?