Ethics of the Atomic Bomb Use in Japan and the Global Nuclear Supply
In WWII the US developed and deployed two atomic bombs in Japan. The bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing many civilians instantly and in the coming months from wounds they suffered. These bombs effectively leveled those cities, and their destruction brought an end to the war. Since then, there has been much debate around the morality of that decision to use the atomic bombs, and the current state of the world’s nuclear arsenal. In this paper I attempt to explore these issues and apply ethical frameworks to them, with the goal of understanding the different arguments in this space.
Looking at the atom bomb, it would be easy to say that it is a bomb, and thus its purpose is to destroy buildings, factories, homes, hospitals, human lives. This is inherently evil so therefore the use of the atom bombs was unethical. However, this is an oversimplification, and the historical context of its use must also be considered. The United States joined WWII in December of 1941, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In 1942, the Manhattan Project was approved, which oversaw the development of the atom bomb to end the war. By May of 1945, German forces had surrendered but Japanese and American forces continued to fight in the Pacific. In July, the first atom bomb was tested and was a success. In August, President Truman had warned Japan that if they did not unconditionally surrender, then “prompt and utter destruction” would follow. Japan did not reply, and in the subsequent days, two atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, leading to 210,000 deaths.
Before considering the various factors at play during WWII, a common hypothetical could be considered. If there was a train that was going to run over 1 person or 5 people, and you had a switch controlling the direction, which would you chose? Assuming there are no other factors to consider (like age, character, etc.) a universal answer would be to save the 5 people. A common reason for this, which is a utilitarian view, is that the loss from the death of five people outweighs the death of one person. Similarly, a common stance on the use of the atomic bombs in Japan is that the use of the bombs ended up sparring lives.
From an NPR article, a land invasion of Japan was estimated to be “on the low end would be somewhere around the neighborhood of a quarter-million, and on the upper end, in through the million range” (Simon, 2010). Using these estimates, a utilitarianist viewpoint would agree that by using the atomic bombs more lives were spared by avoiding a land invasion, therefore the use of the atomic bombs was ethical. More expert opinions also tend to align with these thoughts. Thomas Powers, and American author an intelligence expert, explains in his article that a firebombing campaign was already underway in Japan before the atomic bombs were dropped. These campaigns were horrific, but successful from a military standpoint. He states that “every night of good bombing weather brought the obliteration by fire of another city…another 100,000 Japanese civilians every week or ten days” (Powers, 1995). He concludes that while the atomic bombs were terrible, their use “ended a greater, longer cruelty” (Powers, 1995). However, other ethical frameworks should be considered.
Kantianism is an ethical framework that believes people (and possibly other living beings) should never be used as a means to an end, and instead should be considered ends in themselves. Through this perspective a different conclusion can be made. In his article, Powers also explains that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were strategically chosen. These cities were in valleys, so that a bomb’s explosion was amplified, they were untouched by firebombing so that the full impact of the bomb could be seen, and the people of the city were well educated so that they can comprehend what happened (Powers, 1995). This shows that a major factor in the US’ strategy was to inspire the most fear possible, effectively using people’s emotions and deaths as a means to an end.
Another counterargument to the popular utilitarian view is the lasting impacts of the nuclear bombs. As mentioned before the death tolls were around 210,000. However, a Columbia University study describes how many of these deaths (and possibly more) came later due to radiation poisoning, or extreme heat exposure from the blasts (Listwa, 2012). The study describes how “ionizing radiation can deposit molecular-bond-breaking energy, which can damage DNA, thus altering genes” (Listwa, 2012). The article goes on to explain how cancer often requires many mutations, so it is often years later that cancers develop and the effects of radiation become evident. Of the survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one of these cancers included leukemia which became prevalent about two years after the bombings. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation found that bomb victims had a 46% attributable risk for their leukemia. The radiation also affected the generation after the survivors. For the children exposed to the radiation before their birth, there was an increase in mental disability, and physical growth impairments (Listwa, 2012). Going back to our previous hypothetical of the train. If choosing the side with the one person also meant that everyone on the train would have a much higher chance of developing cancers, and any unborn children would be at risk for physical or mental disabilities, the answer is now much less clear. What if I also added that these people on the train that day were subject to discrimination after, due to their exposure?
Hibakusha, the name for the atomic bomb survivors in Japanese. These survivors were subject to discrimination in the decades after the bombings due to fear that radiation would affect themselves and their children. One survivor recounts her experience in a Science.org article. She was 7 when she survived the bombing of Hiroshima. Later in her 20s when she met the family of a man she was seeing, she recalled the man’s mother opposing their relationship saying, “you can’t marry my son because you are a hibakusha… [people at the time said] hibakusha had the blood of the devil” (Normile, 2020). Years later, that same survivor’s daughter had a similar encounter for her hibakusha blood (Normile, 2020). With these factors in mind a utilitarian view is much less sure. The overall harm caused by radiation poisoning, including the deaths, cancers, birth defects, and social stigma/discrimination, could outweigh the potential harm of a land invasion of Japan. There is also a global impact to consider that affects us today.
An often-overseen consequence of the atomic bombs is the increase in nuclear development after WWII. With the introduction of the atom bomb from the U.S. nations now feared this new power and rushed to develop their own bomb just as powerful. In the decades following the war, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France, and China all successfully developed, and tested nuclear bombs. Today there are almost 13,000 nuclear warheads across the world, with the US and Russia having almost 90% of those (Kristensen, Korda, Johns, & Kohn, 2023). The mass amount of nuclear weapons now available has created a policy known as MAD, mutually assured destruction. This is the notion that a nuclear attack from one of the world’s superpowers would be deterred by the guarantee that the attacked nation would retaliate with their own nuclear attack, ensuring the destruction of both countries. But what does nuclear destruction entail? The immediate impact would be the leveling of entire cities, and a shutdown of power grids. This would be followed by large firestorms that send smoke into Earth’s atmosphere. In the days following the smoke would surround Earth and block out the sun. Temperatures could drop by as much as 40 degrees Fahrenheit. This nuclear winter would destroy food supplies and lead to mass starvation (Tegmark, 2023). This research paper that this article references it estimates that “more than 5 billion could die from a war between the United States and Russia” (Xia, Robock, Scherrer et al., 2022). In evaluating this situation through rule utilitarianism, it is clear to see why most people believe that MAD works. If every nation followed the rule that if attacked by nuclear warheads, they must launch their own nuclear warheads back at their attacker, the result would be the destruction of the world, which is a net harm that far outweighs any possible good from a nuclear attack. Thus, it is believed that no country would start a nuclear war. However, through that same framework there is a far better solution.
If every country agreed to dismantle their nuclear weapons, there would be no possibility of a mass nuclear winter, and the world would not starve in the event of a war. This benefits the entirety of the world, in exchange for individual countries to become less powerful, which through utilitarianism would be ethical. In fact, in 1968 the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was created in 1968 with the goal of limiting the creation of nuclear weapons and achieving nuclear disarmament (United Nations, n.d.). To date 191 countries have signed this treaty and it seems to be relatively effective as the global supply of nuclear weapons has decreased since a peak in 1986. From 1986 to today the global nuclear weapon supply has decreased by about 82%, however this pace has plateaued since the 1990s and the FAS (Federation of American Scientists) concludes that “Instead of planning for nuclear disarmament, the nuclear-armed states appear to plan to retain large arsenals for the indefinite future” (Kristensen et al., 2023). This is likely because the utilitarian viewpoint could break down if you cannot trust the other agents. For example, Russia and its leader, Putin, have shown that they won’t necessarily act ethically with their ongoing war in Ukraine. Through the framework of social contract theory, it is an obligation of the government to protect the people that it governs. If the US was to get rid of their entire nuclear arsenal while Russia retained theirs, the US would be at a serious disadvantage and its people could be put in harms way. However, by retaining some nuclear weapons, maybe just enough to ensure an appropriate counter strike if ever attacked, the US can still deter any harm from coming to its citizens, which possibly explains the plateau of nuclear disarmament.
In conclusion, there are many factors at play when considering the use of atomic bombs in Japan. With these factors there are many frameworks to view this problem through. While people may disagree on whether the use of the atomic bombs was unethical, or how much influence they had on today’s current nuclear stockpile, what cannot be argued is that the loss of human lives was and will always be tragic. I hope that in time nations can learn to trust one another and disarm their nuclear arsenal so that there is never another city leveled, future generations affected, and groups of people discriminated against. While this might be an unattainable ideal, it is still something we should strive towards, and in the meantime, I hope that this paper will help people explore this space and form their own beliefs on the matter.
Works Cited:
Kristensen, H., Korda, M., Johns, E., & Kohn, K. (2023, March 31). Status of World Nuclear Forces. Federation of American Scientists. https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/
Listwa, D. (2012, August 9). Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health effects. K=1 Project. https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki
Normile, D. (2020). Aftermath. Science, 369(6502), 361–365. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.369.6502.361
Powers, T. (1995). Was It Right?. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/07/was-it-right/376364/
Simon, S. (2010, January 16). “Hell to Pay” Sheds New Light on A-bomb Decision. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2010/01/16/122591119/hell-to-pay-sheds-new-light-on-a-bomb-decision
Tegmark, M. (2023, June 29). Here’s how bad a nuclear war would actually be. Time. https://time.com/6290977/nuclear-war-impact-essay/
United Nations. (n.d.). Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT). United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/npt/
Xia, L., Robock, A., Scherrer, K. et al. (2022). Global food insecurity and famine from reduced crop, marine fishery and livestock production due to climate disruption from nuclear war soot injection. Nat Food, 3, 586–596. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00573-0
