Using the bomb pretty much guaranteed that the U.S. would occupy Japan without the Soviets as well as sending a clear message to the Soviets to go slow and careful in Europe and it’s territories. Also, the billions spent on the bomb project was only to be justified by proving the military worth of the Atom Bomb in actual use. In his diary, President Truman stated that he and the Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson were in agreement on the bombing. The targets were to be purely military to save innocent lives. A warning was to be issued to the Japanese government in the hopes that they would surrender before the bomb fell.
For this reason, we lashed out with a vengeance. Now, this act of violence is not considered by any means part of the spectrum of anticipation that Michael Walzer discusses in chapter 5 of “Just and Unjust Wars.” This action along with the fact that this is the same type of terrorism that we would expect from the corrupt Iraqi leadership shows why the war with Iraq would be considered a preventive war instead of the other end of the spectrum, a preemptive strike.
Moreover, other countries claimed the right of nuclear weapons to defend their citizens. Consequently, the tragic bombings became the example of an arm’s race instead of peace. Furthermore, since Japan was already on the brink of collapse the bombing was unnecessary, and peace talks would have taken place within a decent time frame (even after the cancelled Hawaii summit). The millions of deaths calculated by Operation Downfall [the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of the Second World War, which was abandoned when Japan surrendered following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] actually show that only desperation and honour stood between Japan and unconditional
President James K. Polk and President George W. Bush had both wanted to go to war with countries that they believed had been a threat to the United States. They both had believed that these two countries that they had wanted to go to war with had been terrorizing American citizens. Both presidents had honestly believed that the only way to settle this dispute was to go to war. These two presidents had manipulated the government and Americans into thinking that that the only option they had left was to go to war. They both made citizens feel that their lives were going to be, if not already, in danger.
The only real problem that prevented the Japanese from surrendering was the unconditional surrender the Americans demanded. The Japanese thought the emperor to be descended from the sun god and would protect the emperor at any cost. If President Truman had agreed to leave the emperor alone and taken more time to negotiate Japan’s surrender, they probably would have. Instead, after the testing of the first atomic bomb, it was decided after a few days that Japan would be bombed. Even if Truman had decided to use the bomb, there was no reason to bomb Hiroshima.
Since the basic of all human nature is to obtain power, we can assume that there is something that the US wants besides trying to stop the use of chemical weapons. With the past conflicts that we have had in the middle east, why do we need to try and topple a government or be the police for the area and try to neutralize the situation. When we ask ourselves what do we have to gain from this besides more power after the cost of many American lives, is it really worth to have a repeat situation like Iraq and Pakistan? “The character of a foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts.” (Morgenthau) The roots of all human nature is to obtain power, so out of losing many American soldiers lives, what do we gain? If we would have been more involved when we saw the sparks of conflict start, why did we not try to neutralize the sparks instead of fighting a huge wildfire.
The dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inevitable. When faced with the dilemma of sacrificing many foreign, innocent lives in order to save millions of American lives; the United States made the right decision. Nowadays people speculate over whether or not the United States was justified in dropping the bombs. People can ponder over what ifs all they want, but the end result was just the one that the States wanted, an unconditional surrender of Japan. Offerings had already been made to this extremist country, yet they were set in their ways and had the audacity to believe that they were superior to the United States.
The intention was to motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts, prevent war and to limit its effects. The conditions of a Just War are: * it must be fought by a legal recognised authority, eg, a government * the cause of the war must be just * the war must be fought with the intention to establish good or correct evil * there must be a reasonable chance of success * the war must be the last resort (after all diplomatic negotiations have been tried and failed) * only sufficient force must be used and civilians must not be involved Some wars can appear to meet all of these conditions. For example, World War Two (1939-1945) would appear to have been a Just War: * it was fought by Germany and the Allied countries who were legal authorities * Germany was being attacked for invading other countries * the intention was to correct the evil Hitler was doing for Nazi Germany * the Allies felt that they had a reasonable chance of success and they did win * all forms of negotiation with Hitler and the Third Reich had failed * most of the fighting was limited to the armies concerned and to harbours and munitions sites This looks as though it was a ‘properly constituted’ Just War, but actions like the Allied bombing of Dresden, a two-day raid by almost 2,400 bombers that destroyed the city and killed perhaps 135,000 civilians to virtually no military purpose, certainly broke the final condition. World War 2
People would have seen the explosion as the loss of a building, and not as the graphic act of terror that it is. Simply bombing the building at night would not have gotten as much recognition at all. The death toll is what brings the powerful and urgent meaning to what the Patriots stood for and there was no other way to convey it. This impact was supposed to alter the reality of the public and motivate them to take up arms and join the cause that the insurgents were preaching. McVeigh and his terrorist organization wanted to retaliate against the federal government for the massacre at Waco and they felt as if the deaths of hundreds of innocent people were a realistic way to do that.
The Iraqi War – Just or Unjust? This problem-solving paper will demonstrate that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was unjust by application of the jus ad bellum criteria of the Just War Theory. According to Just War Theory, the following criteria must be met for a war to be just: (1) There must be just cause – the only just war is a defensive war in which the goal is defense of self, defense of an ally, or defense of the defenseless. (2) There must be just intent – the intent should be to re-establish a just peace as quickly as possible. (3) War must be a last resort – it should only be fought after all peaceful means have been exhausted.