Remi Blog post 4

 Remi Adefioye

Blog post 4 


The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjust and did not follow the Just War Theory. The bombs were effective and changed the world, but unjust nevertheless. During the war, it was clear that the Japanese were not going to surrender. They were willing to fight for longer and to the death. On the contrary, the U.S. was eager to shorten the war and potentially save American lives. The US gave the Japanese many opportunities to surrender; however, they chose not to do so. In the end, the atomic bombs achieved the US’s desired goal of surrender, but their route of doing so failed to value the principles of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Jus Ad Bellum is about the process before the action. The US decisions were made by a political authority, it can easily be argued that it was a matter of self-defense for their citizens, and there was a high probability of success. However, the use of nuclear bombs was not the last resort for ending the war. In regards to not being the last resort, the US sought an unconditional surrender contrary to surrender. Despite numerous warnings to unconditionally surrender, it was unlikely that the Japanese would give up sovereignty and ultimately their state's culture and future. In this principle of Jus ad Bellum, the US should have settled with surrender rather than unconditional surrender. Therefore, the US was not morally required to force unconditional surrender and hence could have saved lives. Jus in Bello is about the process during the action. In this case, the US did not value the principles of discrimination in Jus in Bello. The US should have targeted troops but instead, civilian lives were not preserved and were in fact targeted. Additionally, in the case of Japan, civilians were innocent and were no part of the war effort.  Ultimately, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally inappropriate. The US was unwilling to settle without an unconditional surrender and civilian lives were not discriminated against. 




https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/#H3

Comments

  1. Brian CoteApril 25, 2022 at 11:01 AM

    I believe that there are multiple points to think about in this blog. Unfortunately, through the island hopping campaign, the United States firmly believed that Japan would not surrender until they were absolutely forced too, as they had seen the civilian populations heavily involved in the Japanese war effort in the battles through the islands around Japan, not even the mainland. As a result, a large scale invasion of Japan was thought of to be avoided at all costs because the estimated to cost over a million American lives, and that was not even counting the Japanese soldiers and civilians that would have died as a result. I completely agree with your argument that the use of nuclear weapons on civilian cities was wrong, as I believe those were a morally terrible target. However, I do see the other side of the argument, as, ironically, the Allies potentially saved millions of more lives with two wildly aggressive attacks as opposed to a full scale invasion, which is the unfortunate reality of conflict.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Billera Blog 5

Simone Billera May 4th, 2022 Blog Post #5 During our class discussion on the Todorov reading, one of the groups asked a thought-provoking question. Within the question, they proposed the potential similarities between the colonization of the Americas in 1492 to our world’s current pursuit of space exploration. After our class discussion, I concluded that the foundation of these two events are similar in nature, to an extent. Additionally, I deduced that such similarities highlight the hypocrisy that continues to seep through our world today, especially in the United States.  Space exploration is a well-respected sector of society. It can be said that those who work in the field are generally intelligent people from educated backgrounds. Each of these individuals has personal reasoning behind their contributions to space exploration, whether it be an earnest urge to benefit the whole of society or the simple but compelling desire for money and power. Whatever the reasoning might...
Read more

Cohen ICC Blog

 To me the most persuasive argument came from the author Daniel Abe; wherein he makes the claim that the cases that the ICC are continually pursuing are both not high value enough, as well as much too costly. Given the underwhelming nature of many of the recent cases the ICC has been taking, the amount of money being poured into financing and providing resources for these cases is far from worth it. As of late, the ICC has been trying to target leaders within many African countries with arguably moderate success at best. If the ICC can't handle going after these much smaller, much weaker countries in comparison to any more powerful or rich countries, how effectual of a body actually is it?
Read more

Remi Blog Post 5

  Remi Adefioye Blog post 5 May 4, 2022 In the article, “Silences Voices in Global Health,” the author describes current movements which aim to improve the representation of the global south and ultimately tackle the power structure in global health. Additionally, the author believes that whilst improving inclusion in global health is required, to change the power structures in global health there needs to be a new and fair world order. After reading this article, I thought about the pandemic and its effect on developing countries. While some people have argued for a reform of the World Health Organization due to its inadequate response during the pandemic, I believe the first problem that needs to be addressed in global health is improving the health systems in developing countries. As we have seen during the pandemic, many developing countries have struggled. Unsurprisingly, NGOs and donors have been the primary providers of health services. Even though these organizations are pr...
Read more