To What Extent Are The United States And Its Allies Justifie

To What Extent Is The United States And Its Allies Justified In Using

To what extent is the United States and its allies justified in using evil means to reach an end? To what extent is the United States and its allies justified in using evil means to reach an end? Task: View Clips from The War and Fog of War Partner up and read the opposing viewpoints on the decision to drop the atomic bomb. Identify in your notes the supporting points of each argument Research the two arguments presented in your notes. Make sure to look for support to their claims. To what extent is the United States and its allies justified in using evil means to reach and end? Assessment: Thesis Please write one objective (Where both sides are equally referenced) based upon your viewpoint arguments. In your response you should reference content from your research to support your answer. Do this in the summary portion of your notes.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical justification of using "evil" means, such as atomic bombs, in pursuit of national ends remains a profound moral dilemma. This issue is vividly illustrated in the debates surrounding the decision by the United States and its allies to deploy atomic weapons during World War II. Through an examination of contrasting viewpoints presented across documentary clips like The War and Fog of War, a nuanced understanding of both sides emerges, highlighting the complex balance between moral imperatives and strategic necessities.

One perspective emphasizes the justification rooted in the urgent need to end World War II swiftly and save lives. Proponents of this view argue that the atomic bomb compelled Japan’s surrender, thereby avoiding a prolonged conflict that could have resulted in significantly higher casualties among soldiers and civilians. Historian J. Samuel Walker (2005) notes that U.S. military leaders believed that dropping the bomb prevented an invasion of Japan, which could have resulted in hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese deaths. Moreover, some argue that the use of atomic weapons was a necessary evil given the brutal context of total war, where ethical boundaries were often blurred by the destructiveness of modern warfare (Gosling, 2007). This rationale hinges on utilitarian principles—maximizing overall safety and minimizing harm on a national scale.

Conversely, critics contend that the use of atomic bombs was morally unjustifiable and represented an act of unprecedented destruction and suffering. They emphasize the immense human toll—tens of thousands of civilians, including women and children, perished instantly or suffered long-term radiation effects. Philosophers like Michael Walzer (1992) argue that deploying such weapons violates just war criteria, especially the principles of discrimination and proportionality. Further, critics highlight the possibility that Japan was already nearing surrender and that alternative strategies could have been employed without resorting to such catastrophic methods (Hersey, 1946). These arguments suggest that the moral justification of the bombings is inherently flawed as they inflicted unacceptable suffering and set a dangerous precedent for future warfare.

A nuanced analysis reveals that the justification for using atomic bombs depends significantly on the ethical framework and the weighing of strategic versus moral considerations. While the strategic argument underscores the potential lives saved and swift resolution, the moral critique accentuates the horrific human cost and long-term ethical implications. Therefore, assessing whether such actions are justified involves balancing these competing values, acknowledging that the decision was shaped by wartime exigencies, yet remains fraught with profound moral questions.

In conclusion, the debate over the justification of using atomic bombs encapsulates larger ethical debates about morality in war. While strategic arguments support the decision under the context of total war and national survival, moral perspectives challenge its legitimacy based on the suffering inflicted and the principles of just war. It is essential to recognize that the justification of such morally contentious actions hinges on the values prioritized—security, expedience, or morality—highlighting the enduring complexity of ethical decision-making in wartime.

References

Gosling, D. (2007). The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb. University of Chicago Press.

Hersey, J. (1946). Hiroshima. Alfred A. Knopf.

Walker, J. S. (2005). Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan. University of North Carolina Press.

Walzer, M. (1992). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. Basic Books.

Hersey, J. (1946). Hiroshima. Alfred A. Knopf.

Hersey, J. (1946). Hiroshima. Alfred A. Knopf.

(Note: The references are examples and should be formatted consistently in APA style in actual scholarly work.)