Compare And Contrast Wussel And Walzer

650 Words3 Pages
Fussel versus Walzer I believe that dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was inhumane and that the happenings of that war could have been solved in a different manner. Before reading both Fussel and Walzer’s opposing opinions on the droppings of the atomic bombs on Japan, I can confidently say that I agreed with Fussel to a certain extent. Many people’s gut reaction to something as huge as this would be “Better him/her than me”. What was so wrong with killing 100,000 to potentially save hundreds of thousands of American lives? That is what a lot of people asked themselves and still ask themselves until this day. To put it briefly, Fussel’s argument states that war was savage for invasion forces and killing civilians of Japan was the only way to avoid a Japanese invasion. In complete disregard to civilian lives, he believes the atomic bomb may have killed many but that it saved many more. Walzer believes that dropping the atomic bomb was inhumane and that war is all about the choices that you make. Walzer makes many valid points that forced me to change…show more content…
He was on the front line, he was right there about to invade a place in which he was told he would probably not make it out of. He is solely speaking from a selfish standpoint and only speaking for the people that stood beside him waiting to die. One may wonder what Fussel’s argument might be if he were not on the front line. In conclusion, in the position I have taken, there are some immediate and long term consequences that I could possibly see occurring. An immediate consequence would be anger from people who believe that the atomic bomb was the right thing to do. If the atomic bomb were not dropped, there is a possibility that an event to that nature could have happened on U.S. soil. Long-term consequences could have been a better relationship with the Japanese as well as a clear
Open Document