Fail Safe Dilemma After viewing the film Fail Safe, many ethical dilemmas arose which caused each character to face one. A specific ethical dilemma that occurred affected the President of the United States. In this dilemma, the United States and Soviet Union had a huge argument and came close to a nuclear war. If this had happened, both countries would have been demolished and neither country would have gotten what they wanted. However, an electronic failure that processed to the fail systems told the bomber pilots to bomb Moscow.
In this essay, Carol Cohn illustrates her concern towards the use of domestic imagery by male nuclear strategists in the United States during the late 1980’s. By domestic imagery, Cohn means using “nuclear warfare- based” language, and having it pertain to the home, family or household affairs. For example, “RVs” is a short term that was used to describe “reentry vehicles” which dropped nuclear explosives. Cohn’s objection to this use of domestic imagery has to do with associating a bomb that can incinerate whole cities, with the image of recreational vehicles used for family vacations. Cohn does not agree with this parallel because it allows the nuclear strategists to be completely “removed from the reality of a bomb.” By this, she means the men do not associate these nuclear bombs with the real world or the damage that could potentially be done to it.
America then created the Hydrogen bomb. Both countries steadily built their nuclear weaponry in secret which prompted both sides to send spies to collect information of the other country’s progress. This caused a feeling of mistrust and contempt and caused a strong dislike between the two. Another incident that affected the relationship was the Berlin Blockade in 1948 that lasted into 1949. The Soviets cut off the western side of Berlin and prevented the Americans, British and French from accessing the city.
The USSR tested its first nuclear bomb and the US became worried about this so they began making more bombs and the countries started to one up each other. Then the USSR stepped over the line with their placement of bombs, they had put missiles in Cuba which put the US into a panic because they were aimed at us. Kennedy immediately had then removed as they felt threating to the US. How was the cold war fought? The cold war was not a war that was physically duked out between two superpowers.
But chemical weapons? Shame on you Syria. With recent technological advances, conventional weapons kill, maim and terrorize in ways not much different from chemical weapons. If you were to take one of America's large bombs or ICBMS and drop it in the middle of Auckland city, it would probably take out half the city. Now drop 3 or 4 of these around and carpet bomb the city and BANG!
After Roosevelt died Truman became the American president. One of the reasons is the dropping of the atomic bomb. During the Potsdam Conference Truman attempted to show he’s authority to other countries by dropping a bomb in Japan. Truman believed that America was one of the most powerful countries in the world and wanted to prove it. Another reason to why America is to blame is after the success of the atomic bomb the members of the Grand Alliance began to see changes in Truman’s behaviour as he started to control the meetings they had and Stalin refused to be bossed around so arguments between Stalin and Truman started, they started.
However, the arms race acted as a strong deterrent through promise of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' and also creating a limited war due to the capacity of the nuclear weapons. The nuclear arms race made the world a more dangerous place; it evoked a threat coming from the two world superpowers. The destruction capacities of this developed nuclear weapon have increased thousand times more than the atomic bomb. The world greatly changed when the USA exploded the Hydrogen bomb in 1952; following by the Russians creation of the Hydrogen bomb in 1953 this led to the world becoming a much more dangerous place. This stimulated the arms race and creating a resilient competitive atmosphere between the world powers.
An experiment conducted in 1963 sent shockwaves though the academic community and beyond. Through alarming methods, researcher Stanley Milgram had made advances on the topic of obedience. He was pursuing the idea that a whole nation could fall under the authority and spell of one person, leading to the extermination of another race. He wanted to establish that the blind, sickening obedience during the Holocaust was not just a freak happening, but rather a common phenomenon (Milgram, 1963). The experiments began three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann.
Event Analysis Can terrorist attacks impact foreign policies? Terrorist attacks such as the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States became a revolutionary shift in how the world collectively viewed ways to fight against terrorism on the of international politics level. Finding ways to safeguard its national interest became a major factor with the international relationships with other countries. September 11, 2001 was a horrific act of terrorism that was the most unexpected and worse terrorist attacks in history. Many people died that day, and many people today still mourn the losses.
Guy Fawkes 10/21/10 Was the dropping of the bomb a war crime? What do different national histories of the bombing signify? As J. Samuel Walker (quoted by Giamo) indicates, this is a very complicated question that can’t be answered by a simple yes or no. When analyzing the ethics of the dropping of the bombs, as with any single historical event, one must consider context: in this case, that includes Japanese imperialism and war crimes, the increasing acceptability of targeting noncombatants throughout the war, potential American, Japanese, and other Asian lives saved by the dropping of the bomb, the targeting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in particular for their civilian populations, the forced militarization, loyalty, and sometimes persecution of Japanese citizens themselves by the Japanese government, and a plethora of other factors. Ideally, any public history that addresses the dropping of the bombs should take these factors into consideration, and as a result, most should come to a similar yes-and-no conclusion to Walker’s.