Free Essay: Military Ethics of Hiroshima

Military ethics encompass various subjects primarily on the military conduct and practices, beginning with the scripting of the performance reviews about the subordinates, to the relation of military individuals with the leaders, to other issues that may relate to war. In most of the occurrences, military leadership is among the most fundamental aspects that require consideration within the details and context of military practices (Primoratz, Igor 2017). The Hiroshima bombing is among the various military topic within the bracket of the army ethics because of the numerous practices around the military actions against Hiroshima. In the process of deciding between going to war or not, the questions and the outcomes or the results of the military actions (war) are in most cases not warranted. As a result, the operations may gain the interpretation and questioning as to whether the practices are ethical or unethical. As for the case of the military ethics of Hiroshima, many people render arguments that the act was unethical while on the other hand, others counter-argue that the army event was ethical. The incident may have presented various outcomes; however, there are different feelings portrayed in the occurrence of the military operations. In meaningful comparisons of the happening, it is essential to understand the details behind the bombing together with learning the implications of the actions.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Analysis of The Military Ethics of Hiroshima

Since the decision to go to wars occurs after critical intervention and actualization that it is the best option within the involved predicaments, the decisions and actions attain the weighing against each other in the strive to ensure that best measures and steps are taken especially regarding the happening in nations, for instance, United States. In the analysis of these happenings, the weighing between the decisions and actions help in the investigation as to whether the actions adhered to military ethics or not.

According to Morgan, Michael L., book, Classics of moral and political theory, it delivers various ethical methods. They include the Plato's Republic (REP), Hobbes' Leviathan (LEV), Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (NIC), Mill's Utilitarianism (MILL), and Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (GMM). Within the delivery of the theories, they deliver a definition and explanation of the details of the ethics whereby they determine the overall information in the action or events. On the other hand, according to (Orend 301-331), in the analysis of military ethics, there are three dominant ethical theories including; utilitarianism, deontological, and virtue ethics.

Different individuals raise their concerns about military ethics. For instance, in the argument pertaining military ethics, many individuals are against military operations as a whole depending on the contexts while others argue that military in its different branches is essential and a necessity. Military actions are different which focuses on the various activities and the events through which the military operations are gaining utilization. In the contexts of these happenings and practices, the rules, and the actions are governed through various activities and attempts of the overall individual overseeing the method which in most cases, they may involve the Government.

Nuance

The event of Hiroshima is a happening that people still debate about to date. Through its occurrence, the dedicated personnel had different objectives; however, the density of the outcome was vast than expected to compare the implication that no one was really at peace with the action. As mentioned earlier, different activities covering its occurrence stirred up the difference in opinions relating to its military ethic position. In the cases of some of the exact arguments, various persons argue that the events require significant revisiting in comparison to its historical status through the exhibition of the Japanese invasions and other cases of war (such as World war II). In the interactions and interventions concerning the atomic bombing of Hiroshima which concern the ethical, legal, and military controversies that occurred during the incidents, it takes place through the closure of World War II.

Before the affairs of the bombing, there were talks pertaining the involvement of the war and terms upon the surrender of Japan; however, as a counter strategy, the Japanese acquired an ultimatum stating that if Japan did not hold their horses and resignation, it would encounter "prompt and utter destruction." In various arguments, most the individuals argue towards the activities revolving around the decision-making process among other actions that would prompt the surrender of the Japanese (Palencia-Roth 41-57). The Soviet Union had declared war on Japan which in various impacts, led to the submission of Japan after the occurrence of the attack and the end happenings.

Nonetheless, over the course of time, different explanation and arguments have acquired and attained less significance following the support of evidence becoming available through the completion of studies. Supporters of the bombing render an assertion that the event represents the surrender of Japan, preventing massive casualties on both sides in the planned attack or invasion of Japan. In several instances, there was a presumption that Japan would now surrender unless there held an overwhelming demonstration of destruction on their side that would make them incapable of fighting back. For the individuals opposing the bombings, they argue basing their arguments that the event was militarily unnecessary, a form of terrorism, a war crime, and inherently immoral. Also, some critics assert that a naval blockade would have rendered Japan to their surrender, other, argue that Japan was more of motivated into submission by the Soviet Union's Invasion in Japanese areas.

Argumentation of The Military Ethics of Hiroshima

Since the transpiration of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima was a military action that later renders significant impacts, it is evident that arguments concerning the happening would arise pertaining the ethical standards of the military operation. In the delivery of the discussions, there different theories that deliver on the various courses of military ethics involving the action; however, "Just War Theory" offers a significant interaction relating to the happening. The theory opposes utilitarianism in a different context since the just war theory it describes the happening as a good happening. While the arguments provide a proper description relating to the discussion of Hiroshima, the Just War Theory offers a broader definition and analysis (Davidson 2016).

In various happenings, there are claims and descriptions that according to the original details regarding the dropping of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. Upon the use of the nuclear weapon, US felt that it was they high time they showed their strength to Japan and showed the extent to which they would go in case of similar occurrences of war. As for many members involved in the decision making relating to the bombing of Hiroshima, they believed that they were sending a message to Japan that it was just a beginning of a regime about what they could achieve in destroying Japan. Also, most of the individuals imply that the dropping of the bomb was believed to render a notification to Japan upon any uses of the weapon unless it was critical in various instances or necessary. For example, after the bombing, President Truman is quoted saying, "the Japanese began the war from the air at Pearle Harbor. They have been repaid much fold." In the details of the quotation, it delivers and explores the notion of America pertaining the bombing of Hiroshima.

However, in the process to subside and end the American war, many American wanted an end to the wars, and as a result president, Truman faced pressure into ending the war and securing a win for America. President Truman had an atomic bomb at his disposal which in one way or the other was expected of him. If the president had not used the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, it means that more American lives would have been lost and raising of various reactions since most of the American had the ideology that the US was capable of ending the war even before it started. With such intuitions, they raised the morality behind the bombing of Hiroshima (Palencia-Roth 41-57).

Next, as the theory defines, the morality of the military action, it rejects the glorification of war recognizing that the event produces vast misery for the human. Within its argument, it poses arguments as to whether the activity was ethically right or wrong. In a measure of the Hiroshima events regarding the military ethics of the bombing, it war must acquire the waging relying on the legitimate authority. Japan and US are in most of the occurrences both sovereign powers thus, in the context of the aggressive acts, it has acquired waging by the legitimate authority. on the other hand, before any happening in the war, there is a need for meaningful negotiations to avoid any events of the war. Correspondingly, it is evident that through the firebombing of Hiroshima, there were negotiations between Japan and US in the signing of their surrender among other happenings that aimed at shortening and ending the war.

Similarly, during the events and happening of any military action, it is essential and beneficial to search and comes up with ways that are helpful and would facilitate in ending the war. With a focus on the happenings at Hiroshima, the US believed that the reason for was ethical since they had made failed attempts to end the war, but Japan would not surrender. According to them, the only way to mutate such a happening entail making an effort or a military action that would leave them without any option but surrender. Also, there must a proper and interactive response pertaining the outcomes of the events proportioning it between the good if the purpose which should ensure that the human nature does not face harm.

Through the delivery of another argument relating to the military ethics of Hiroshima, there was a significant loss of lives; however, according to the "Just War Theory" in case the invasion would have happened, there would be a more loss of lives. In other terms, the proposes and actions at hand need proper moral recognition and must be achievable. Hence, in different measure, US used the atomic bomb towards Japan in attempt to undermine the Japanese army which ended the war altogether. If the US had used other means of attack that the Japanese would hit back, then it means the event would steer the war thus render an unethical practice since there would be more loss of lives.

Additionally, in consideration of the requirements of different theories relating to ethics, there is need to focus on some of the major happenings. For example, in the vent of military ethics, the actions should not major in helping or affecting one side of the parties but should focus on the greater good or, the better ending. As for the case of Hiroshima, the use of the atomic bombing, according to the US, was for the greater good. It is because they argue that the attempt would produce more good which entails the ending of the war and that in case the Japanese invasion would have occurred; more lives would be lost. As for them, the primary aim of the Hiroshima bomb was focusing to hit the military workers and disable their infrastructure and economy and no to internally attack the civilians; however, there are claims that the war renders significant effects to the civilians considering the density of the atomic bomb.