Karina+Week+11

The debate going on amidst some of the scientists who were working on the development of the atomic bomb is familiar to me because the controversial issue of atomic power (the use of the weapons is decided for the most part) exists today as well. While there is a sort of mutual agreement that the use of atomic weapons in war is immoral, the arguments put forth for and against their use (or the use of any weapon for that matter) go either along the military line or the moral path, just as they did during WWII. =The arguments for the use of atomic weapons focused mainly on the tactical uses of such a weapon, which would save American lives in the war. Many argued that dead is dead, and there is no difference in the method in which it happens. Death by bullets or mortars is not pleasant, so why should that be allowed and not this new, very effective weapon? (Surveys apparently done on the U.S. population showed that there was a large percent morally opposed to poison gas, of which the United States had stockpiled, even though it was effectively employed by the Germans). “The only reason to treat nuclear power differently from all the other developments in the field of physics is its staggering possibilities as a means of political pressure in peace and sudden destruction in war.” Not only were these weapons possible of widespread destruction of cities (and even more so now), but with enough atomic bombs, there would be //total// destruction. Especially if there was an arms race after the U.S. deployed the bomb against Japan. And an arms race would inevitably occur once other nations saw what this weapon could do. “Thus, we cannot hope to avoid a nuclear armament race, either by keeping secret from the competing nations the basic scientific facts of nuclear power, or by cornering the raw materials required for such a race.” = = = =If this indiscriminant weapon was morally wrong, and if the United States used the atomic bomb on Japan then insisted that the use be prohibited or at the very least regulated and restricted, would they have the right to do so, or would it be hypocritical? How would a universal ban be enforced? “In the past, science has often been able to provide adequate protection against new weapons it has given into the hands of an agressor, but it cannot promise such efficient protection against the destructive use of nuclear power. This protection can only come from the political organization of the world. Among all arguments calling for an efficient international organization for peace, the existence of nuclear weapons is the most compelling one. In the absence of an international authority which would make all resort to force in international conflicts impossible, nations could still be diverted from a path which must lead to total mutual destruction, by a specific international agreement barring a nuclear armaments race.” It seems to me that even if the United States had, once the bombs were used, destroyed the rest of them along with any material used to make the bombs, and stated that because the potential of mutually assured destruction was a very real possibility, all use and development of nuclear arms be prohibited, it would not guarantee that the rest of the world would follow suit and not develop these weapons. If there was freedom to create these atomic bombs, there would have to only be trust that another nation would not use them in war or for acts of terrorism. “Therefore, only lack of mutual trust, and not lack of desire for agreement, can stand in the path of an efficient agreement for the prevention of nuclear warfare.” = = = =There is no clear answer to this question – what to do about nuclear weapons? The United States has them, Russia has them (the Cold War and armaments race happened), etc, etc. Do we trust that someone else won’t use those weapons? Just by considering the destruction and global impact that these weapons are capable of, let alone the moral reasons, any rational person can conclude that the use of atomic weapons should not be allowed. Along with that too, comes the question, what about war? War itself is terrible so why don’t we prohibit war if we restrict the use of specific weapons in war? These questions can only be answered with a “yes, we can outlaw war” in an idealistic world. No matter how much war might be wished to cease, realistically this would never happen. Someone always wants war, be it a terrorist motive, personal revenge, supposed protection from a threat, religious wars, tribal disputed…it seems that people resort to violence and war inevitably. Maybe I am being pessimistic when I say that there will always be war among humans, despite the horrors of war and the suffering and the destruction, and there will always be militaries because there will always be some degree of mistrust present. = = = All quotes from: //Report of the Committee on Political and Social Problems// // Manhattan Project "Metallurgical Laboratory” // // University of Chicago, (The Franck Report) June 11, 1945 //