Nukes hurt....a lot

These first articles by Stimson and Dueck pretty much assured me that we have no morals whatsoever, or just clearly cannot think things through. With the six alternatives laid out by Dueck, how could you choose the atomic bomb? Some of the alternatives are not as strong as the actual thing, and none of them can actually ensure defeat, but then again, neither did the atomic bomb. There was no reason to think that dropping consecutive atomic bombs on Japan would have any more effect on the Japanese morale than the fire bombing which killed 100,000(think about that number for a second, and how much larger than you it actually is) in a single night.

It is obvious that as a public figure you must take into account the will of those who you are serving, otherwise you are not doing what you were elected or appointed to do. However, one must be willing to supersede these demands and look at the broader picture of things: a life is a life, whether it be Japanese, American, or Soviet, and to throw any of them away is dooming yourself for failure in the future. I say this boldly as there is an obvious proportionality complex which occurs in the minds of public officials. It is as if your own constituents are worth at least one thousand times more than others. This brings us back to many/dirty hands.

However, going back to the topic at hand, the alternatives seem to hold either a strong solution, or a very weak one. Looking at the atomic bomb from a purely destructive standpoint, not weighing any lives any higher than others, such alternatives as the ground invasion or using Soviet troops as a threat and in the place of American soldiers simply do not seem beneficial. The estimated lives lost in both circumstances were high, and considering at this point in the war the death tolls were already higher than every expected, it just doesn't seem useful to go killing that many more persons.

The non-destructive alternatives shed new hope, but it seems that pride had gotten in the way. If we had waited longer for a response from the Japanese before bombing a second time, we might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. If we had listened to the pleas of Japanese officials in stating that they did not want to lose face in terms of their emperor, even though we ended up using the emperor as a puppet later, we might have done the same as above. All of these "what if" situations seem to be logical solutions which breed the least destruction and death, yet for some reason that doesn't seem to be a consideration in times of war. The fact that for the United States and Harry Truman, it was not about the defeat of the Japanese, but of the long lasting control we would have in times of war as well as over the Japanese. As Truman stated, "[the bomb] must be used" and that it was "the only way to awaken the world to the necessity of abolishing war altogether."

This brings me to my final point: you cannot obtain peace through violence. This is not possible, it doesn't work in religious contexts, it will not work in a world context. I say this because that seems to be Truman's justification of what he did, he knew it was going to kill tons of people, yet went along with it in the name of peace. Peace through war is such a facade because if the means to obtain peace are violent, then the end result of peace cannot be peaceful. If for instance (and yes this is a big if), we end up destroying the majority of the world because of a constant struggle for resources, it will not bring peace. After billions of lives lost in wars, is it logical to believe that people will just shake hands and say good game chap, let's end this?