Logan+Week+11

After WWII, the U.S. no longer needed to research and produce atomic bombs because we were no longer threatened. However, in a statement (in 1950) made by President Harry Truman, he decides to have the Atomic Energy Commission continue their work on them. The President begins by stating his role of Commander in Chief: “to see to it that our country is able to defend itself against any possible aggressor.” Truman saw that the continued research and production of atomic weapons would be important to our nation’s defense. Of course many thought the work should not be continued.

One can say the atomic bomb of WWII did save the lives of many Americans but the morality of its use is a controversial topic. Could a bomb that killed thousands, actually save more than it killed? At the time an even more powerful weapon referred to as a “super” bomb was spoken of; a weapon 100 to 1000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb. After the WWII, we were no longer threatened by other nations. The atom bomb was a trump card in our arsenal to ensure us victory but it was also dependent on the fact that Japan did not have a weapon to match its strength. If both sides were in possession of atomic bombs, the weapon would not save lives but put more at risk. The development of a more powerful weapon could give help defend the U.S. better according to Truman.

The true strength of a “super bomb” comes from the international power it gives a nation. However, technically there is no limit to the explosive power which puts more people at risk than it needs to be. “It is clear that the use of this weapon would bring about the destruction of innumerable human lives; it is not a weapon which can be used exclusively for the destruction of material installations of military or semi-military purposes. Its use therefore carries much further than the atomic bomb itself the policy of exterminating civilian populations.” This weapon was not meant for normal military tasks but for total war situations. It is quite shocking that we have created such an object that is capable of “exterminating” human kind so effectively. The article even says that genocide is possible with such a weapon. It is clear that a “super bomb” would be too inhumane to produce.

In the Majority Annex, it was believed that the “super bomb” should never be produced. The dangers that the weapon would present to mankind were not worth the military advantage that would come from it. It is quite a different weapon than the atomic bomb. The use of a “super bomb” would always result in the slaughter of many civilians. Besides the immediate destruction, the use of these weapons also leaves large areas uninhabitable for long periods of time due to radioactivity. Worst case scenario: a war involving “super” weapons on both sides would leave countries or even Earth uninhabitable and desolate. They believed that the Russians would be able to produce such a weapon in a decade. The fact that the U.S. had a “super” weapon would not mean that the Russians would hesitate to use one against us. This tension eventually arose during the Cold War.

“It is clear that the use of such a weapon cannot be justified on any ethical ground which gives a human being a certain individuality and dignity even if he happens to be a resident of an enemy country. It is evident to us that this would be the view of peoples in other countries. Its use would put the United States in a bad moral position relative to the peoples of the world.” I agree that the use of this weapon in any situation would be morally wrong because of the total destruction it creates. It also generates hatred towards us and provides shame for generations to come. It is noble to fight for ones country but inhumane to kill civilians. That is why international policy and agreement about such weapons is important. It would always be better to avoid the use of these “super bombs” in any war and even total war.