Are Atomic Bombs a Resolution to Peace?
Developments of atomic bombs are a technology that is evolving and continues to develop on a continuous basis. These atomic developments by some nations despite going against the regulations of UN specifications continue to cause eyebrows among many in today’s perspective. It is high time we reflected on the role of the US in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Many People today may posit different opinions and viewpoints with regard to whether it is morally sound or not to deploy atomic bombs as a means of ending wars. For proponents of atomic bomb use, they may cite different situations and circumstances such as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions where these were used to stop the war. There are others who are strong opponents of their use citing ethical and moral factors associated with atomic explosions. Nonetheless, an evaluation of the pros and cons indicates that the cons of its use outweigh its pros and therefore, should be discarded.
Fussel observes in his article “Thank God for the Atomic Bomb” that the use of atomic bombs is necessary for ending war conflicts. He justifies this opinion by giving details of his first-hand experience and other people’s experiences such as James Jones, Former Pfc. E. B, John Kenneth Galbraith and Michael Sherry in the renowned Japan and American war. He goes on to note that the American and Japanese war went on for some time and involved ground combat. However, Americans eventually, scared the Japanese by dropping atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He also justifies and explains why the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings by the Americans were necessary for ending the war conflicts, that without the bombings, “Japanese surrender could not have been obtained” (p95). He also goes on to articulate that “The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bomb was the trigger to all the developments that led to peace”. Though Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing caused a lot of destruction, peace between America and Japan could not have been realised, furthermore, more destruction could have occurred.
In support of this argument, the Japanese minister for defence was recorded in 2007 as saying that Hiroshima and Nagasika bombings were inevitable phenomena in Japan and American war fiasco. Although this resulted into the huge loss of life and property, this turned out to be another advantage to them because, had Soviet Union entered into the Warfare, then more destruction could have been experienced. These comments were similar to those given by Emperor Hirohito at Tokyo press conference. In his comments, the emperor expressed that in wartime, people have to be prepared for all forms of eventualities from war.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing have however continued to face condemnation by various people even at the present times. It is not uncommon to hear Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings as being referred to as war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism acts etc. Among the critics of ancient times of this American bombings were high regarded scholars such as Wigner, Einstein and Szilard, in their arguments, these scholars had jointly criticized the acts as being morally unsound.
Several observers have pointed the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as being illegal, and amounting to disregard of international guidelines with regard to war and respect to life. It is as well argued that the dropping of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs may not have been the sole reason as to why Japan Surrendered but a conglomeration of factors including the entry of Soviet Union in the warfare.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing were in actual sense irrelevant in military perspective. This is because Japan was already a weaker nation at that time and its defence mechanisms had been devastated by the wars. This is even confirmed by a statement in a memo written by one of the US generals that even if America had not deployed atomic bombs, Japanese could have still surrendered owing to their growing weaknesses.
It should also be considered that majority of the scientists who had developed the atomic bomb had recommended it not to be used in destructive practices or to harm human beings. In fact, the developers of atomic bombs submitted a report to the then President Truman on why the bomb should not be used as it may virtually cause huge destruction. They also added that the use of the weapon will jeopardise the international support which is needed in war and peace initiatives. Therefore, its use as an instruments of solving war issues goes against the recommendations of the developers.
From these arguments, it can be noted that Use of atomic bombing as a means to solve war conflicts can result into major problems rather than solving them. It should also not be forgotten that the effects at Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing are still felt to the present day. Scientists and medicine have not yet established effective medical solutions to the effects of atomic bomb explosions to life. The modern atomic bombs if deployed can destroy the whole universe at a twinkle of an eye. Furthermore, education has changed many peoples perspective on war and conflict resolution approaches. Many of today's people advocate for peace through more concise ways other than wars or atomic bombs. Nonetheless, there are situations which can make the use of atomic bombs unavoidable. Such situations include when a nation needs to defend herself from its enemies who are keen to destroy her and when mechanisms of solving the war problem have failed.
