The Pros And Cons Of The Atomic Bomb

1901 Words8 Pages
With every major decision comes controversy and backlash, and the decision by former U.S. president Harry S. Truman to use atomic weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was no different. Did the U.S. absolutely need to engage in nuclear warfare? Was it morally right to bomb civilians? Did the U.S. ignore jus in bello? Many historians have differentiating views regarding the use of atomic weapons, some arguing that the atomic bombs ended the war while others maintain that the bombings only accelerated Japan’s defeat, which many viewed an an inevitable outcome. The use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has historically been justified by Jeremy Benthem’s moral concept, Utilitarianism, which presents a paradox because weapons of mass destruction by itself are deemed immoral. Utilitarianism is unable to justify the use of atomic weapons on…show more content…
Then in February 1946, he gave the famous ‘Bolshoi speech’ accusing America of using its atomic advantage for imperialism. In this way, it is claimed, the atomic bomb directly caused the entrenched positions of the Cold War. America’s use of the atomic bombs increased tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, acting as the catalyst to begin the Cold War. The nuclear bombs were “dropped on Japan to let the Soviet Union know who would be running the Post-War World” (McReynolds). The bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially aimed at Moscow and the Stalin regime. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the first shot in the Cold War. President Truman’s decision to send a message to the Soviet Union by bombing two cities in Japan and killing thousands of people makes the bombings a truly monstrous crime, and surely unmoral and unethical. A political warning should never be sent at the cost of human

More about The Pros And Cons Of The Atomic Bomb

Open Document