Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justification for atomic bomb use
Justification for atomic bomb use
Justification for atomic bomb use
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Justification for atomic bomb use
Christians' Justifications of Using Nuclear Weapons When answering the title of this essay, you have to first look at why countries retain and develop nuclear weapons. The first reason and most obvious of all is to use the nuclear device to destroy an enemy. A good Christian however can never justify this, because no matter how accurate your weapons are you will undoubtedly kill innocent civilians. If you look at the Ten Commandments laid down by God you will see that God was opposed to war, violence and any form of mistreatment. We are told, "To love thy neighbour" and "To treat our enemies, as we would want to be treated." If you were to look at these commandments you would see that nuclear warfare could never be justified and if you do provoke a nuclear war you should be punished. That brings me into the second reason of why countries retain nuclear weapons and that is as a threat. It is a way of protecting your country, but you will protect yourself and retaliate if provoked. Any Christian would feel that this was unjust, after all God did say in the Ten Commandments, "Forgive your enemy". Retaliating in any way, shape or form would be breaking the Ten Commandments and therefore you could not call yourself a good Christian. That leads me onto the third reason of why countries retain nuclear bombs that is to use it as a deterrent to anyone who may consider attacking the country. Many Christians believe that retain nuclear bombs just for the use, as a deterrent, is ridiculous. They feel that there is no point in spending millions of pounds on producing nuclear weapons just for the use as a threat. It is difficult to imagine that people find it acceptable that 75,000 to 100,000 die unnecessarily every day from lack of food, water, shelter, sanitation etc (not from war) while the world's most privileged governments pour even more billions into 'security.' I agree with them, and I feel that there are far more important things
2) The cause must be just. This is jus ad bellum because you decide if
While on the other hand, another thesis claims that the act of dropping the atomic bomb was complexly justifiable and not a war crime. Both sides had their weakness, however, they both had strong logical points. The first thesis strongest point was that without a doubt the use of the atomic bomb was a war crime because it killed so many and those whom it did not kill are left suffering. Thus, this argument contributes to present day fears of nuclear wars. In contrast, the second thesis is that even though the use of the atomic bomb may seem like a war crime.
Eric Schollser argues in his paper “Today’s Nuclear Dilemma,” that the nuclear weapons in the world, and the issues that they are associated with, should be of major concern to today’s society. Nuclear Weapons were of world wide concern during the time of the Cold War. These weapons, and their ability to cause colossal devastation, brought nightmares into reality as the threat of nuclear war was a serious and imminent issue. The US and Russia both built up their inventories of these pieces of artillery, along with the rest of their arsenals, in an attempt to overpower the other. This past terror has become a renewed concern because many of the countries with these nuclear weapons in their control have started to update their collections. One
When it comes to nuclear war, most people will have mixed feelings on it. Nuclear war is a difficult area to touch on. Whether or not someone sees it as ethically right or wrong, all depends on the person and their moral values. The reason I chose this was because I don’t think it is necessarily right to engage in nuclear warfare even if it is the only means to end war. Just-war theory, utilitarianism, and Virtue ethics all help show a different perspective on nuclear warfare. There are many solutions to it, however. Some solutions are getting other nations to place embargos on the country and forcing peace talks without resorting to military action. Significantly, it is important that nuclear war is addressed in the world so that nations
“We all fight on two fronts, the one facing the enemy, the other facing what we do to the enemy” (Boyden 199).
David Janzen says, “One difficulty with the violent image of God is that it appears to construe God as a rather capricious being, changing the divine mind from one setting to the next.” This argument is very helpful with giving me a voice for challenging or offering a new lens for those of the African American tradition to view the images of God. Janzen offers help to us for viewing a God who “could not demand killing or enforce capital punishment, or sanction genocide” if we are to view this God through Jesus Christ. This reading also caused me to reassess the way in which I view the biblical canon as a whole. If we are to be true to the Trinitarian theology that we confess then how can we present one as violent and the other as peaceful?
Human conflict is among the most complex topics in the world. It has always occurred alongside the existence of humanity, and often it escalates to violence and warfare. This has been a cycle throughout history, and there has not been much evidence pointing to the end of it. With no foreseen end to this cycle combined with a population that has an ever expanding curiosity, humans have had to justify going to war. Individuals tend to be very passionate and emotionally connected to their beliefs and thus they enjoy being right. They have justified violence and war with this innate desire to be right, and for this reason they have become the most common method for resolving human conflict; but at what cost? Life. Unity. Respect. These are concepts
Have you ever thought of nuclear weapons being a threat to you? If you have never taken this into consideration; think again. Yet some people believe nuclear weapons should not be abolished and therefore every country should own them. Points that support this side of the argument are; nuclear weapons are required for deterrence, thus abolishment is an unrealistic goal and that abolishment would be counter productive and only lead to greater barbarity in warfare. I understand these points, but I do not take this side of the argument as these reasons are not enough to convince me to keep nuclear weapons.
Throughout half the century of the 19’s hundreds a period of new advancements in the creations of a bomb had arisen. On August 8th, 1939 President Roosevelt received a letter from Albert Einstein which ended up being the fundamental support in the creation of the Atomic Bomb. There are two types of atomic bombs fusion and fission, the first atomic bomb was created in 1939 by the Manhattan Project, three weeks later after its first test, it was used in an actual war. It’s capable of wiping out a whole entire city and killing instantly anyone in its way. Now we have better more precise bomb know as hydrogen bombs, these bomb use the energy released when the nuclei of a hydrogen come together or fuse, unlike a fission bomb which gets its energy from when the nuclei of a heavy element such as plutonium or uranium splitting apart creating a chain reaction leading to a large explosion.
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 resolved 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.”
some person violence but reject war as always wrong. Mohandas K. Gandhi believed in the
Pacifism holds that all violence and war are morally wrong, and that Christians should not participate in warfare in any way. Pacifists literally take the “turn-the-other-cheek” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5). They must be ready to accept violence without resistance or retaliation. Christians must never use force, even in personal self-defense. Pacifists believe that Christians who condone violence and warfare do so by relying on philosophical arguments, not on biblical text and that they have become corrupted by values that are a part of the secular world. Having a new identity in Christ and being a part of the Kingdom of God (2 Cor 5:20 and Philippians 3:20), Christians must not become entangled in this world’s affairs. Pacifists make the point that one’s loyalties and obligations are to God and when there is a conflict between obeying God or obeying one’s government, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Discussion: Have participants read 2 Cor 5:20, Phil 3:20, Acts 5:29) Ask: Is it possible for someone to love their enemies if they are killing
Governments from other countries should be able to work things out and settle business without fearing that someone will be threatened with a nuclear war. These weapons have a very high percent of total destruction, other countries do not think about when they use these fatal weapons as an excuse, of what they will really do when sending the bombs off. They are only thinking of defending themselves no matter what the consequences are, little do they know that it could come back and bite them in the butt. Nuclear weapons will not only cause destruction to one country but all of them. Banning these dangerous weapons will make sure that these excuses will no longer be a problem to the world, countries and nations will not have to fear if they are putting the entire world in
On August 1954, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the cites of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over two hundred thousands instantly and more over time due to radiation and other injuries. These two bombs ended World War II and changed the public’s view of nuclear energy. Those bombs were the only nuclear weapons used in any war, but there were many more detonated for tests.(1) During a speech about the nuclear test ban Kennedy said “Eighteen years ago the advent of nuclear weapons changed the course of the world as well as the war.”(2) The invention of nuclear weapons changed the world by having the ability to destroy the human race, changing how countries fight wars, and building fear into people around the world.
we go back 2000 years we will notice that war was the main mean of