Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
ethical issues arising from war
ethic opinions on wars
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: ethical issues arising from war
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by man. There are many reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party, war is the last remaining option. Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun wrote in fourteenth-century Spain, that “War is a universal and inevitable aspect of life, ordained by God to the same extent as the sky and the earth, the heat and the cold. The question of whether to fright is not a significant moral question because fighting is constant; the minor decision not to fight this war will be made only in the context of knowing that another war will present itself soon enough because it is simply always there.” (Peter S. Themes. The Just War)
The Politician and the soldier have a common goal; to win the war. But there is a difference in their mindsets. The politician, safe behind his desk, has never experienced the fear and terror of being in battle. He has not seen the blood or heard the screams of suffering soldiers. He has not watched his best friend die in his arms after being hit my enemy fire. He is an onlooker, free to analyze and critique every aspect of the war from the safety of his office. He is free and safe to talk of ethics and proper war etiquette. The soldier, immersed in battle, fighting for his life, can think of only one thing. Kill or be killed. When bullets are flying past his face and mortar shells are exploding all around him, he is not mindful of fighting ethically. Nor is he even mindful of fighting for his country. He is fighting for his life. To stay alive, he must kill the enemy, destroy the enemy. The longer the war persists, the more likely he will not go home alive.
“The employment of organized violence means one must, in fact, abandon fixed and established values”. (Chris Hedges, War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning) It is clear that the way in which the United States approached the war in Iraq was in fact due to, in some regard, the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan, and the ensuing debate that it created thereafter.
In 1945, the United States was facing severe causalities in the war in the Pacific. Over 12,000 soldiers had already lost their lives, including 7,000 Army and Marine soldiers and 5,000 sailors (32). The United States was eager to end the war against Japan, and to prevent more American causalities (92). An invasion of Japan could result in hundreds of thousands killed, wounded and missing soldiers, and there was still no clear path to an unconditional surrender. President Truman sought advice from his cabinet members over how to approach the war in the Pacific. Although there were alternatives to the use of atomic weapons, the evidence, or lack thereof, shows that the bombs were created for the purpose of use in the war against Japan. Both the political members, such as Henry L. Stimson and James F. Byrnes, and military advisors George C. Marshall and George F. Kennan showed little objection to completely wiping out these Japanese cities with atomic weapons (92-97). The alternatives to this tactic included invading Japanese c...
The United States of America’s use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has spurred much debate concerning the necessity, effectiveness, and morality of the decision since August 1945. After assessing a range of arguments about the importance of the atomic bomb in the termination of the Second World War, it can be concluded that the use of the atomic bomb served as the predominant factor in the end of the Second World War, as its use lowered the morale, industrial resources, and military strength of Japan. The Allied decision to use the atomic bomb not only caused irreparable physical damage on two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along
The bombings of 1945 by the United States of America on Japan were very controversial events. Many historians believe these acts were aggressive and unnecessary. In addition, analysts argue that the U.S. should have used alternative methods instead of the bomb, but most do not realize the repercussions of these different tactics. On the contrary, the bomb was needed to ease tension quickly and effectively. Ultimately, the bomb proved more effective than any other method, and also proved to be a technique that is sufficient for America’s needs. The effort made by the U.S. to bomb Japan after their disapproval of the Potsdam Declaration was needed to end conflicts in the Pacific because of Japanese resistance, to save American lives, and to portray the U.S. as a nation of power and dominance.
...ar the use of weapons of this magnitude, the American idea of the Japanese people has changed, and we now have set up preventions in the hope of avoiding the use of nuclear weaponry. John Hersey provides a satisfactory description of the atomic bombing. Most writers take sides either for or against the atom bomb. Instead of taking a side, he challenges his readers to make their own opinions according to their personal meditations. On of the key questions we must ask ourselves is “Are actions intended to benefit the large majority, justified if it negatively impacts a minority?” The greatest atrocity our society could make is to make a mistake and not learn from it. It is important, as we progress as a society, to learn from our mistakes or suffer to watch as history repeats itself.
Throughout history, there have been countless wars between different groups of people because of race, religion, economic basis, and endless other reasons. More often than not the party that initiated the war was not justified in doing so based on Douglas Lackey’s “just war theory”. One action initiated by the United States that has been furiously debated since the decision was made is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and later Nagasaki. While some argue that President Harry S. Truman was wrong in making the decision that he did, I will be arguing that he was correct in deciding to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima because there is clear evidence that shows his actions were justified with both statistical proof as well as that the choice coincides with the criteria for “just war theory”.
The fact that the United States resolved to drop an atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan shocked many people, including U.S. citizens. The U.S. chose a brutal weapon when choosing the atomic bomb, as proven by the thousands of deaths it caused. Today, some people still question the motives for such a ruthless choice of weaponry. The atomic bomb, however destructive and questionable, seemed to be the only way to ensure “unconditional surrender” of the Japanese. The atomic bomb was, in fact, “a clear step designated to force Japan’s unconditional surrender;” however, this statement fails to give attention to the larger picture that influenced the U.S.’s decision to use the atomic bomb. By using the atomic bomb before any other nation
On August 6th, 1945, the United States of America dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima in Japan. Two days later, a second bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. These two bombs were the most devastating weapons ever seen, and their effects on human beings and property were plainly horrifying. Approximately 110,000 people were killed; most of them were innocent civilians who just happened to have lived in the wrong place at the wrong time. Although using this weapon was an atrocity to both the Japanese, and humanity in general, the world was at war. No matter what ulterior motives may have existed, the fact remains that the bomb was a justifiably necessary measure to bring an early end to aggressive war that was instigated by Japan. Japan would never have surrendered unconditionally, as decreed in the Potsdam Ultimatum. Invasion of the Japanese home islands were out of the question because of the ferocious defense that would have been staged, and the huge number of casualties that it would entail. The bomb shocked the Japanese militarists into surrender and gave the “peace-party” the added credibility they required to bring about a quick end to the war. The use of the bomb also kept Russia out of the war, preventing problems that had occurred in post-war Germany, and later on in Korea. When all factors are taken into consideration, the use of the atomic bomb actually saved more lives, both Japanese and American than it took.
War is a mean to achieve a political goal.it is merely the continuation of policy in a violent form. “War is not merely an act of policy, but a true political instrument....” Moreover, the intensity of war will vary with the nature of political motives. This relationship makes war a rational act rather than a primitive and instinctive action, where war uses coercion to achieve political goals instead of use it only for destruction, and it cannot be separated from each other even after the war has started, when each side is allowed to execute its requisite responsibilities while remaining flexible enough to adapt to emerging
Wars are mostly unnecessary but necessary in exceptions. Wars can lead to destruction, change, provoke communities and control. I myself a believer of Hinduism. As my culture and religion has taught me that wars is only acceptable when, there is some person who retaliates the human rights and morality of the humans. It is rarely acceptable to just start a war for random minor issues between two different communities. First, always try to solve the problem by vocal means. I have read my religion’s holy book, which is like the bible and it known as Bhagavad Gita. It tells us the story about a very big war between two kings, in there the best archer does not pick up the weapons because he was fighting his own brothers. His brothers were ruling badly and killing innocent people. The god tell the best archer to pick up the weapon and tells him that this are the times when it's a necessity to pick the weapons and start the war. Well that
In early August 1945 atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs quickly yielded the surrender of Japan and the end of American involvement in World War II. By 1946 the two bombs caused the death of perhaps as many as 240,000 Japanese citizens1. The popular, or traditional, view that dominated the 1950s and 60s – put forth by President Harry Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson – was that the dropping of the bomb was a diplomatic maneuver aimed at intimating and gaining the upper hand in relations with Russia. Today, fifty-four years after the two bombings, with the advantage of historical hindsight and the advantage of new evidence, a third view, free of obscuring bias and passion, can be presented. First, the dropping of the bomb was born out of complex infinite military, domestic and diplomatic pressures and concerns. Second, many potentially viable alternatives to dropping the bombs were not explored by Truman and other men in power, as they probably should have been. Lastly, because these alternatives were never explored, we can only conjecture over whether or not Truman’s decision was a morally just one, and if indeed it was necessary to use atomic energy to win the war.
The moral and military necessity of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has been a subject of debate for almost half a century. Most revisionists emphasize the victimization of Japan during the attacks. They often forget the military realities and the historical context while judging whether it was necessary for America to use nuclear weapons against the two Japanese cities. It is important to note that Japan was the aggressor. Japan triggered the war that led to the bombing of its two cities with its sneak attack on America’s Pearl harbour in 1941. Subsequent systematic and flagrant violation of several international agreements and norms through employment of chemical and biological warfare and mistreatment of prisoners of war and civilians aggravated the situation[ Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. (NY: Knopf, 1995), 89]. A response was needed to deal with increased aggression from Japan. Allied military planners had to choose between invading Japan and using the US atomic bombs in 1945[ Ronald Tabaki, Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. (Little, Brown, 1995), 101
World War II brought up many new technologies for warfare. Advanced on existing developments such as weaponry, ships, vehicles air crafts, navigational devices and medicine are just a few broad examples of developments in warfare during this time in United States and World history. One development, however, changed the entire way of warfare. The Atomic bomb was developed during this time out of fears that the Germans had the same technologies, or at least were working to obtain it. Once the United States had this technological capability of producing atomic weapons, the way of fighting was changed. Two bombs were dropped on Japan in August of 1945, one on the city of Hiroshima and the other on the city of Nagasaki. Afterward, the ear of atomic diplomacy came up in American international relations, which as we have seen today, has led to the development of even stronger, more deadly weaponry and bombs. The bombing of Japan also brings up the still prevalent debate of whether the bombings were justifiable or not. Historians Gar Alperovitz, Robert P. Newman and Barton Bernstein all have written essays expressing their opinions in the matter.
The member of the Defense Department and the marine have a common goal; to win the war. But there is a difference in their mindsets. The politician, safe behind his desk, has never experienced the fear and terror of being in battle. He has not seen the blood or heard the screams of suffering soldiers. He has not watched his best friend die in his arms after being hit my enemy fire. He is an onlooker, free to analyze and critique every aspect of the war from the safety of his office. He is free and safe to talk of ethics and proper war etiquette. The marine, immersed in battle, fighting for his life, can think of only one thing. Kill or be killed. When bullets are flying past his face and mortar shells are exploding all around him, he is not mindful of fighting ethically. Nor is he even mindful of fighting for his country. He is fighting for his life. To stay alive, he must kill the enemy, destroy the enemy. ...
Humans have engaged in war for thousands of years. The earliest recorded instance is circa 2700 BCE. Of course, the fighting extends much further back as this was near the advent of writing. Even Confucius observed "... war checks population growth" speaking in relation to what problems overcrowding would institute (Neurath 6). Tertullian, a Christian author circa 200 CE stated "...pestilence, famine, wars and earthquakes have come to be regarded as a blessing to overcrowded nations, since they serve to prune away at the luxuriant growth of the human race" (8). These two statements, separated by almost 700 years and a vast distance coincide on one major point: that war is a useful tool to govern overpopulation. The ramifications of overpopulation are so great, that it is being reported in multiple news agencies that a "Sixth Extinction" is underway, caused solely by the human's enthusiastic attempts at procreation and manipulation of Earth (Eldredge). In fact, just as population grows exponentially, so did the deaths resulting from war; a trend that continued up until the end of World War II, after which worldwide deaths from war decline dramatically and rest at around one million per ye...
War has been around for centuries. From the time modern civilizations began, war has played an integral part in human history. It shaped the world into the modern world we live in. War has been said to be a great motivator, for example, the Great Wall of China was built to fend off the attackers from the north. However, the negative aspects of war far outweighs any positive effects it might have. The destruction of civilizations, cities and countries, mass killings of men, woman and children alike, the disastrous effect it has on economy and the after effects of war can last for centuries.