| ||||||||||||||
Was the use of the atomic bomb
moral? First, the Japanese cabinet was “dominated by militarists from
the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of
whom were initially opposed to any peace deal” (Wikipedia 7). Even
the bottommost soldiers were all willing to fight to the very last
man, which only further shows how unyeilding the Japanese were. Second, an invasion of Japan would have cost more than 500,000
American lives. Clearly, this motive is enough justification for
using the atom bomb, as a nation seeks first and foremost, to
protect the lives of its citizens. Lastly, under a utiliatarian argument, dropping the atomic bomb
might have actually been best for the Japanese people in the long
run. If we did not drop the atomic bomb, the Russians would have
entered the war. This scenario seems plausable if and only if we did
NOT have the bomb. Japan is lucidly a conflict of interest, insofar
as political idealogies go. We already saw how the Soviets left the
conquered Germany. If the Soviets and Americans jointly conquered
Japan, it is indubitable that Japan would be divided up into a North
and South, or an East and West. The East German people were not very
happy with their Soviet overlords, and in much the same fashion, the
Japanese people under Soviet influence would not be too pleased. The
Soviets aside, there is one other reason why the Japanese are better
off because we used atomic bombs. While between 100,000 and 200,000
Japanese (over 90% were civilians) died, more Japanese civilians
would have died from a full out invasion of Japan. With a complete
Allied blockade, “some estimated that 10 million people were likely
to starve to death” (Wikipedia 8). 10 million is 50 times as
many people as 200,000! | ||||||||||||||
© 2006 Philosophy
Paradise |