In the event that Japan did not accept the peace treaty they could possibly attack us again. They would think that we are weak and or that we are not capable of defending our nation, people or our pride. If Japan accepts the treaty, this could save thousands of lives and accomplish the ultimate goal. Taking no further military would go along with William O’Brien’s ideal of right intension, “Enemies must be treated as human beings with rights” (White, 26).We must realize that love exist even among our enemies and act with charity towards them. Being able to ease hatred and animosity is the purpose of right intension and could be accomplish in not taking military action against Japan. The second of the three options is to invade Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the cities of Japan.
In order to invade Japan the American government would have to draft more soldiers, possibly increase taxes in order to afford to ship the soldiers over and supply them with the necessities in order to accomplish the invasion.Also the Japan people are taught to fight to the death, thus thousands of lives would be lost on both parties. In choosing the land invasion approach, the goal is not necessarily to make Japan surrender but to take over, which is not the primary goal. The overall outcome of successfully invading Japan would unevenly distribute finances and foreign policy control, creating issues with the surrounding countries. Invading Japan is unnecessary and does not contribute to what the American government wants to accomplish, specifically their mind set of obtaining moral justice for Japans previous attacks.The third option is to drop the atomic bombs on the cities of Japan. Dropping the bombs should promote America’s power and dominance.
There would be less military personal involved than a land invasion, which is equal to less lives lost. Dropping of the bombs would be quick and affective. Also the atomic bombs would result in Japan’s surrender or an unlikely counter act. Although bombing Japan would certainly get the job done, is it morally right to bomb cities with innocent people whose lives will be taken? I believe that this question was taken into heavy consideration, but the outcome of dropping the bombs outweighed the consequences.The forms of pursing just cause are for both defensive and offensive wars. William O’Brien says “Defense of state is prima facie of an essential social institution. So strong is the presumption in favor of the right of self-defense that the requirement of probable success” (White, 24).
Which means self- defense is morally justified if the outcome brings success. In this case success is making Japan surrender. We had lives lost and it became a decision to balance the Pearl Harbor attack and to obtain their attention in order to create a higher chance of Japan’s government to create a solution to settle America and Japan’s conflicts.In conclusion, the decision I felt that made the most sense was to drop the atomic bombs over the two cities. In 1945, dropping the bombs made the most sense, especially because of the attitude Americans had during the war, in order to right what Japan had done to Americans and in order to demonstrate what the American government was capable of. O’Brien reflected an unbiased picture of what was being done in reference to dropping the bombs and the consequences of dropping the bombs and other options that could have been substituted.Americans, at this time and now, despite the destruction it caused millions of innocent people, would most likely still have proposed to drop the bombs.
It was a cruel time in the world and this situation was only one that represented the harsh decisions being made. O’Brien stated, “War often treats individuals and nations so cruelly and unfairly that it is unrealistic to expect them to banish all hatred of those who have afflicted them. ”Works Cited White, James E. “Contemporary Moral Problems: War, Terrorism, and Torture. ” Thomas Wadsworth, 2009. Pp. 21-27