Atomic Bomb Morality

The development of the atomic bomb and chemical warfare forever changed the way people saw the world. It was a landmark in time for which there was no turning back. The constant balancing of the nuclear super powers kept the whole of humankind on the brink of atomic Armageddon. Fear of nuclear winter and the uncertainty of radiation created its own form of a cultural epidemic in the United States. During these tense times in human history officials made controversial decisions such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dangerous biological experiments and bombs tests were carried out in the name of the greater good and national defense. Some historians and scientists argue that the decisions and acts carried out by the U.S. during World War II and the Cold War were unethical because of the direct damage they did. The United States' decisions were moral because it can be proven their actions were aimed at achieving a greater good and those that were put in potential danger volunteered and were informed of the risk. The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan were ethical decisions made by President Harry Truman and the United States government. By the time of the atom bomb was ready, the U.S. had been engaged in military conflict for over four years and lost over 400,000 soldiers. Truman claimed, "We would have the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved" (Winkler 18). The bomb was aimed at ending the war immediately and avoiding prolonged battle in the Pacific Theater and the inevitable invasion of Japan. President Truman hoped that by showing the Japanese the devastating weapon the U.S. possessed, that the war could be brought to a close and reconstruction could begin. Historians that believe the bombing was immoral point to the number of lives taken by the bombings. According to Allan Winkler, 70,000 were killed and another 70,000 from the attack on Hiroshima alone. They contend that the Japanese would have surrendered without more bloodshed if given a fair opportunity. This assertion is untrue; the Japanese were prepared to surrender only after incurring irrecoverable casualties while continuing to fight the Americans. Lee Reese, author of "Yes: Japan Had the Bomb" asserts that the land of the rising sun was still rapidly producing aircraft, tanks, and other weapons in preparation for a continued assault from American forces. According to Reese, not only were the Japanese ready to continue the war, but were also close to building an atomic weapon of their own. 1969, General Minoru Genda, one of the chief planners of the Japanese Offensive, was asked if Japan had developed the bomb whether they would have used it against the United States or not. According to Reese's article, the General's response was an immediate yes and added that Japan was ready to fight to the, "last man" (Reese 41). The United States' attack saved more lives by preventing the war to continue, especially if the Japanese could have escalated it to a nuclear struggle.
The Japanese were also responsible for the damage incurred by the two atomic blasts. They were informed about the attack and volunteered for the actions taken against them. The early 20th century was marked by a rise in nationalism. Nationalism is defined as an embracement to one's own country. Citizens during this time felt a stronger unity and connection to each other, and embraced their relationship with the government more than ever before. Japanese citizens knew the risk of starting a war against the Allies and therefore accepted the potential risks and responsibilities their government put upon them. President Truman also explicitly warned the Japanese. In the Potsdam Declaration, the Commander in Chief threatened, "The inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland." The United States notified Emperor Hirohito and Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki of a devastating attack planned in the near future. The two leaders chose to ignore the warning. The bombings in World War II were ethical because they saved countless lives, allowed for the immediate end to the war and the beginning of reconstruction, and Japan was warned of the impending attacks.
Atomic weapons were also used by the Soviet Union and United States during the Cold War. While the actual execution of nuclear missiles in foreign policy changed, their use was still ethical and saved lives. The possession and threat of nuclear arms by the two super powers ensured a locked stalemate. Weapons with the potential to kill millions served the greater good by preventing another violent war following World War II. Neither side could enter into full scale conflict without the total obliteration of both parties. Also, as tensions grew, both sides looked to alternatives to ensure that inevitable battles remained small and contained for fear of nuclear attack. Starting with President Kennedy, the U.S. army was modernized to fight more effectively on practical battlegrounds instead of relying on nuclear arms. The United States adopted a policy of "Graduated Deterrence" where the U.S. response would be equitable to the attack against it. Ultimately atomic weapons during the Cold War ensured that tensions between the two nations didn't lead to all out war. Instead, it forced both sides to invest in smaller, more efficient army units, trained to combat other ground forces. Nuclear arms prevented major loss of life during the second half of the 20th century. During the periods of the Cold War and World War II, the United States conducted numerous tests related to the atom bomb, radiation, and chemical warfare. While some were injured or killed during these tests, they still remain ethical because the aims of these tests were to help the larger population and scientific community while those subjected to were generally informed and consented to the tests. Physician Walter Reed established the ethics of modern testing that ensured future experiments would be fair and moral to those subjugated. Reed wanted to test a theory related to yellow fever, but to do so, it was necessary to inject subjects with the disease. Before continuing Reed searched for volunteers, informed them of the risks involved, and offered financial compensation. It is because of his research that many lives were saved in the early 1900s. This method of informed and consenting patients is what makes dangerous practices moral.
During World War II, the American Committee on Medical Research was faced with confronting Malaria. The disease was taking heavy lives in the Pacific Theater and made progress difficult. According to Moreno, Malaria infected nearly 300 million people a year, and killed close to 3 million. In 1942, the committee looked for subjects to test treatment. Volunteers were needed who were both informed of the danger with contracting Malaria and given financial compensation. During wartime, the feeling of nationalism and national pride was at its height. Americans not directly involved in the war effort wanted to do what they could and volunteered their lives eagerly. This sentiment also transcended educational or class barriers. Aristocrat prodigy Nathan Leopold, a volunteer for the experiment was quoted saying, "I wanted very badly to do my bit" (Moreno 33) and commented that other volunteers, "they saw a chance to do something decent and worthwhile" (Moreno 34). Those arguing that U.S. practices weren't ethical might point to other experiments, such as the one done on Nathan Schnurman. Schurnman, an American Sailor, volunteered for an experiment for new sailor clothes, but was actually subjected to prolonged exposure to mustard gas, which he protested. The argument could be made that the sailor did not volunteer for this experiment. This would be an error. Nathan was a member of the American Armed Forces, because of this he volunteered to do anything the country asked of him in the name of the U.S. and its well-being. As a U.S. Navy Sailor, he consented to have his life risked for his country. Furthermore, Schnurman was not ordered to do the experiment he volunteered of his own free will, and was compensated for his pain; he was given a paid leave of absence. Atomic Bomb testing was also ethical because of the amount of publicity it was given. There was a significant public awareness of the tests. According to Winkler, most Americans supported the tests through out the 50s, and many detonations were televised live. Americans were in general, aware of the locations in the United States where these tests were common. By continuing to live in these areas, Americans consented to be being near the test sites. President Eisenhower Also distributed pamphlets during his tenure to also increase awareness of the tests. Furthermore, most of those within the blast of the bomb were American Soldiers. The goal was to train the army corps to be prepared for a battle involving nuclear weapons. While the argument might be made that these individuals did not consent to the test, by volunteering the U.S. Army, they consented to voluntarily lay down their lives in the name of the United States. There are very few records of individuals killed or fatally injured due to testing. The AEC stated the tests were, "harmless…any possible danger was offset by the knowledge gained by the tests" (Winkler 103). According to the Atomic Energy Commission, levels during the tests were always kept at quantities that were safe to humans nearby. The results of atomic testing ensured the prolonged stalemate with the Soviet Union, and allowed for the establishment of the Federal Radiation Council which set safe national standards for nuclear radiation. Most of those involved in the U.S. tests volunteered, either directly like Leopold and the Malaria experiments, or indirectly like the American Soldiers. The benefits of these tests ensured a long, relative peace between the U.S. and Soviet Bloc and greatly benefited the scientific community. The dropping and the atomic bomb and the continued use of human subjects during scientific testing in the 20th century continues to be a controversial subject. It is because the actions carried out saved many lives and that those hurt were informed and volunteered that these methods were moral. It is because of the debate surrounding these actions that science has continued to evolve. From these earlier practices, more rigid experimental methods are enforced. These new regulations protect the patient and continue to ensure that those sacrificing their safety to aid others are not injured without fully understanding the risks involved. The modern world will continue to benefit from the actions taken by the United States during the 20th century.