Introduction
Background Information on the Hiroshima Bombing
One of history’s most contentious incidents continues to be August 6, 1945, an atomic bombardment of Hiroshima. Around 140,000 citizens, many women, and children were murdered after the United States released an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This incident triggered a discussion that is still going on today since so many people question the morality of utilizing such a destructive weapon. The employment of nuclear weapons in combat for the first and only time, in the bombing of Hiroshima, was a watershed event in human history. The bombing’s terrible effects have been well-documented, and survivors have reported radiation sickness, burns, and other serious wounds. The long-term effects of the bombing’s aftermath included social and economic marginalization for many survivors and their families.
Prior Decisions Leading to the Bombing
The prior decisions and moral baggage from World War Two were a factor in the bombing of Hiroshima. The United States entered the war in December 1941 when the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor. The US and Nazi Germany were competing to produce the first atomic bomb. To create the nuclear bomb, the government launched the top-secret Manhattan Project. President Harry S. Truman, who had been informed of the Manhattan Project shortly after taking office, decided to launch the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Truman’s decision was motivated by various considerations, such as the need to end the war soon, concern over the number of casualties resulting from an American invasion of Japan, and the conviction that the atomic bomb would give his country a decisive advantage in the conflict.
Key Stakeholders in This Study
The Japanese government, the American government, historians, academics, survivors, and their families are some of the main parties involved in research on the Hiroshima bombing. Every cluster may take a distinct viewpoint and weigh inversely grounded on their bits of knowledge, allegiance to their country, and cultural ideas. The Japanese government has denounced the deployment of the atomic bomb, and some academics contend that Japan would have capitulated even if the weapon had not been used. On the other side, a large portion of the US government at the time thought the bombing was essential for ending the conflict and sparing American lives. The moral ramifications of the bombing are still up for debate among historians and academics, with some contending that it was a war crime and a breach of international law. In contrast, others defend it as a necessary evil. Many who survived the attack and their families have spoken out strongly against it, sharing their stories and calling for disarmament and peace.
Historical Context of the Hiroshima Bombing
The Principle of Nonmaleficence
The nonmaleficence principle is among the essential ethical factors to consider when assessing the Hiroshima bombing. This fundamental rule of medical ethics states that we should not damage other people. Thus, the bombing of Hiroshima goes against this essential tenet. A nuclear bomb struck the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and was estimated to have killed 140,000 persons, most of whom were non-combatants. The explosion and its aftermath caused extensive damage and suffering, and many survivors suffered from radiation sickness, severe burns, and other disabilities. One blatant instance of harming others significantly was the bombing of Hiroshima (Skarpelis & A, 2020). The atomic bomb was dropped, according to those who supported the choice, to finish the war fast and save more lives than it cost. The morality of choice to detonate the bomb, however, has been hotly contested. Some contend that deploying such a lethal weapon cannot be justified and that the concept of nonmaleficence was breached.
The Principle of Utilitarianism
Another ethical theory commonly mentioned while talking about the Hiroshima bombing is utilitarianism, which focuses on maximizing the overall benefit for the most significant number of people. One of the ethical ideas that are frequently cited when talking about the Hiroshima bombing is utilitarianism. Those who favor the choice to release the bomb in the case of the bombing of Hiroshima hold that it was imperative to put an end to the war as soon as possible and that doing so ultimately saved more lives than it had cost (Wöll & S, 2022). This argument is based on the assumption that using the atomic bomb cut the length of the war, leading to fewer casualties than if the conflict had been allowed to rage for a more extended period. However, those who oppose the bombing point out that it is impossible to ignore the long-term effects radioactive exposure has had on the survivors.
The utilitarian principle’s defense is typically made in the context of the past. It is based on the supposition that the bombing ended the war, but this does not excuse the suffering done to defenseless civilians. The ethical quandary presented by the bombing of Hiroshima highlights the limitations of utilitarianism as a guiding principle. The human suffering caused by the Hiroshima bombing is commonly disregarded when applying utilitarianism, which prioritizes the welfare of society over the well-being of the individual.
The Principle of Justice
When analyzing the Hiroshima bombing, the fairness principle is also in play, especially in light of the bombing’s disproportionately adverse effects on civilians. It is debatable whether using such a potent weapon on a civilian population was just and whether the United States had cause to target non-combatants in this manner. Hiroshima’s bombing was a blatant infraction of the justice principle.
Using such a weapon on a civilian population was considered particularly objectionable because it is not accepted as a legitimate military strategy to target non-combatants in a battle. Many contend that the United States is morally obligated to rectify the harm inflicted by the bombing because the bombing survivors continue to experience its long-term effects. The idea of justice also calls into question the circumstances behind the decision to detonate the bomb. The choice was taken amid World War II when the US was fighting a bloody war with Japan (Tomonaga & M, 2019). Hiroshima’s bombing was viewed as an essential step in hastening the war’s end and preventing future American casualties. Many still believe that using such a weapon against a civilian population is unfair.
Problems and Dilemmas in National Security
The Use of Nuclear Weapons
There are serious moral questions raised by using nuclear weapons for national security. Nuclear weapons have only ever been used in battle once, during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, which resulted in enormous devastation and casualties. The bombings of these two cities had a lasting impression on history and helped shape worldwide regulations and standards governing the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons advocates contend that they can advance global stability and act as a deterrence to aggression. Theorists who believe in nuclear deterrence contend that having nuclear weapons can deter other nations from attacking a state because they would be terrified of a nuclear response (Heuser & B, 2014). Additionally, they contend that the use of nuclear weapons may swiftly put an end to a conflict, ultimately sparing more lives.
However, there are also significant ethical questions raised by using nuclear weapons. The disproportionate harm nuclear weapons cause to human populations is one such issue. Around 200,000 people died due to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, primarily civilians. It is morally challenging to defend nuclear-powered arms because of the immense destruction and human casualties they produce. The possibility of escalation and unexpected effects is another ethical worry (Heuser & B, 2014). Using nuclear weapons could set off a series of retaliatory actions that could spiral out of control and cause untold destruction on a global scale. A catastrophic arms race that could endanger global security could also be sparked by nuclear weapons, creating new, more devastating weapons.
The Impact on Civilian Populations
Significant ethical questions are raised by using atomic armaments against human populations. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused unprecedented destruction and fatalities. Women and children were among the civilians who were killed most frequently. Nuclear weapons use against civilian populations violates the non-combatant immunity principle, which states that civilians should be shielded from the dangers of conflict. The morality of deliberately pursuing non-combatants is questioned by deploying nuclear bombs against civilians (Rotter & A, 2008). Targeting civilians is forbidden by international humanitarian law, and military operations must be carried out with the least possible impact on non-combatants.
Tens of thousands of civilians were killed due to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many of whom were not actively participating in the war effort. Beyond the immediate loss of life and material destruction, nuclear weapons have an impact on civilian populations. The bombing survivors have dealt with long-lasting physical and psychological impacts. Numerous people have experienced radiation-related ailments, such as a higher risk of developing cancer and other chronic conditions. The bombings also caused long-term trauma and societal disruption by disrupting the social fabric of the impacted communities.
Long-term Health Effects
Significant ethical questions about the ethics of employing atomic missiles for national sanctuary have remained elevated due to the survivors of the Hiroshima bombing’s long-term health repercussions. “hibakusha” survivors have various health problems, such as an increased risk of cancer and other radiation-related disorders. Due to their position as bombing survivors, the hibakusha has experienced stigma and discrimination for decades due to these long-lasting health repercussions. The effects of the Hiroshima bombing on civilian populations have also raised significant ethical questions. Women and children who were not directly engaged in the fight comprised most of those killed in the bombing (Greulich et al., 1953). The explosion also left survivors without homes, hospitals, and other crucial services while wreaking havoc on the city’s infrastructure.
Since the Hiroshima explosion, a considerable ethical debate has been concerned with using atomic missiles for countrywide safety. The devastating effects of the bombarding have sparked heated discussions on when nuclear weapons are justifiable. Some proponents of nuclear warfare contend that these weapons are required as a deterrent to stop assaults from other countries. On the other hand, some contend that conflict resolution should always be made through less violence and that the deployment of such lethal weapons can never be justified. The impact on innocent lives of using nuclear bombs, especially on civilian populations, presents tough ethical questions (Greulich et al., 1953). Many still debate the morality of unleashing such a destructive weapon, making the Hiroshima bombing one of history’s most contentious incidents. The decision’s justness and if the United States was defensible in aiming at non-combatants in this fashion are called into doubt, given the decision’s disproportionate negative impact on civilians.
Case Study: Possible Solutions
Strengthen International Laws and Norms Around the Use of Force
To stop the use of nuclear weapons in the future, it may be helpful to strengthen international laws and norms around using force. Governments’ acquisition, creation, and use of nuclear weapons could be subject to more international restrictions. Adopting legally binding treaties and accords that restrict the development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons is one way to do this. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which attempts to halt the binge of nuclear-powered missiles and support peaceful uses of nuclear energy, illustrates such a treaty. The pact is the foundation of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and has been ratified by 191 nations.
However, certain nations, including Iran and North Korea, have yet to ratify the agreement. There are worries that those that have, like the United States and Russia, may not adhere to their obligations. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is another agreement that tries to enhance international rules and laws concerning the use of force (TPNW). The treaty forbids using, creating, manufacturing, testing, transferring, and deploying nuclear weapons (Wilson & R, 2021). The nuclear-armed governments, notably the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom, have yet to join the TPNW despite being ratified by 51 nations.
Prioritize Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution Over Military Force
Prioritizing diplomacy and conflict settlement over military force is one of the most fundamental ways to deal with the moral issues raised by the deployment of nuclear weapons. The use of military force ought to be a last resort, and attempts ought to be made to settle disputes amicably. The importance of conversation in resolving conflicts should be prioritized, and diplomatic channels should be strengthened (George & W, 2020). The danger of military conflict could be decreased by establishing communication channels between nations and international organizations. Nations can negotiate accords that advance peace and security with diplomacy.
Direct negotiations involving international bodies like the United Nations can lead to diplomatic solutions. Many international conflicts have been successfully resolved through diplomacy. An instance of effective diplomacy is the Iran Nuclear Agreement. After numerous discussions, a compromise was negotiated between Iran, the United States, and other international powers that helped ease tensions and advance regional stability (George & W, 2020). Nevertheless, diplomacy is only sometimes successful, and some countries might need help finding peaceful solutions. The use of military force may be required in such circumstances. Nonetheless, using force should only be done as a last resort, and all other measures should be taken before resorting to force.
Promote Disarmament
Promoting disarmament and lowering the number of atomic missiles is another way to address the ethical issues surrounding nuclear weapons. The public’s pressure on governments to prioritize disarmament and bilateral or multilateral agreements between nations could accomplish this. The dismantling of nuclear weapons, the reduction of nuclear warheads, and restrictions on their manufacturing and stockpiling are all part of the disarmament process (Shapiro & M, 2015). Disarmament would aid in lowering the danger of unintentional nuclear conflict, nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands, and the environmental risks connected to nuclear weapon development and testing.
A framework for disarmament might be established through bilateral or multilateral agreements to help build confidence between states. One example of a bilateral agreement that sought to lessen the number of installed planned nuclear weapons is the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed between the United States and Russia in 1991. A multinational pact called the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), signed in 1968, aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and advance disarmament (Shapiro & M, 2015). Public pressure, in addition to official action, can be significant in advancing disarmament. Public activity and awareness can generate a wave of support for disarmament, which will pressure governments to prioritize disarmament initiatives. Disarmament can be promoted through social media campaigns, grassroots movements, and civil society organizations.
Conclusion
The Hiroshima bombing has critical ethical ramifications for decisions and procedures in national security. The bombardment broke the rule of nonmaleficence, which states that we should not damage other people. Around 100,000 people died as a result, the bulk of them civilians. Significant questions were also raised over the use of nuclear bombs, notably against civilian populations, and the long-term effects on survivors’ health. The international community has to make laws and standards concerning the use of force stronger in order to solve these ethical issues. Adopting legally binding treaties and accords that restrict the development, acquisition, and use of nuclear weapons could be one answer. It is also essential to give diplomacy and conflict resolution precedence over the use of force. Nuclear weapons should only be used as a last resort, and attempts should be made to settle disputes peacefully. The danger of military conflict could be decreased by establishing communication channels between nations and international organizations. Moreover, finally, encouraging disarmament and reducing the number of nuclear weapons might be accomplished by bilateral or multilateral agreements between nations and public pressure on governments to prioritize disarmament.
Protecting human life must be given priority by national security decision-makers, who must also follow international law and moral standards. It is necessary to encourage ethical decision-making in national security to ensure that decisions focus on the welfare of people and communities rather than only on political or strategic goals. The national security community can contribute to a safer and more secure world by encouraging international communication and collaboration. The bombing of Hiroshima serves as a sobering reminder of the terrible results of employing nuclear weapons, especially against civilian populations. To ensure that the national security community supports human rights and well-being, as well as international laws and ethical standards, it is crucial to address seriously the ethical issues that the bombing has brought to light. We may work toward a safer and more secure world by strengthening the rules and norms around using force, emphasizing diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution, and encouraging disarmament.
References
George, W. P. (2020). “Tongues of Fire”: Hiroshima as Hell and a New Pentecost? Theological Studies, 81(3), 560–581.
Greulich, W. W., Crismon, C. S., Turner, M. L., Greulich, M. L., & Okumoto, Y. (1953). The physical growth and development of children who survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Journal of Pediatrics, 43, 121-145. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3476(53)80001-6
Heuser, B. (2014). The Bomb: nuclear weapons in their historical, strategic, and ethical context. Routledge.
Rotter, A. J. (2008). Hiroshima: The world’s bomb. OUP Oxford.
Shapiro, M. J. (2015). Hiroshima temporalities. Thesis Eleven, 129(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402399808437710
Skarpelis, A. K. M. (2020). Dresden Will Never Be Hiroshima: Morality, the Bomb and Far-Right Empathy for the Refugee 1. In Far-Right Revisionism and the End of History (pp. 198-219). Routledge.
Tomonaga, M. (2019). The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A summary of the human consequences, 1945-2018, and lessons for homo sapiens to end the nuclear weapon age. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2(2), 491–517.
Wilson, R. (2021). ” Hiroshima Sublime”: Trauma, Japan, and the US Asia/Pacific Imaginary. SARE: Southeast Asian Review of English, 58(2), 46–61.
Wöll, S. (2022). ” I Thought of Carthage”: Disentangling Moral and Military Aspects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings.
write