About the moral dilemma of the atomic bomb?

Question

What are your thoughts on this?
I'm preparing for a socratic seminar that will take place next week about the creation of the atomic bomb and the moral dilemma that the scientists involved in the project faced.
In your opinion, was it right to go ahead with creating such a dangerous and potentially destructive weapon?

Wow, thanks so much for your thoughts, everyone. You've brought up some really awesome points, and I've got a lot to think about now. If you will, please keep the comments coming. I'm very interested in what eveyone has to say.

Answer 1

Whether or not it was right to create such a weapon is immaterial; science and progress do not stop for morals. If someone had not developed the atom bomb in 1942-45 due to morals, it would have merely postponed the inevitable.

Where morals comes in is not in the development or progress of science, but in the decision of its application. As the supposedly more evolved species, we need to question whether our creations should be used or not, and if so, for what purpose. The atom bomb spawned comparatively non-harmful applications like nuclear reactors and nuclear medicine; the reverse could just have likely occurred has Oppenheimer et al. chosen to focus upon the non-militaristic applications of splitting the atom.

In sum, it was right to proceed with the development of the atom bomb, regardless of the potential harms, because it would have happened anyway. Where the moral restraint, and thus culpability for the use of the bomb, must lay is in the decision of how to use or not use what has been created.

Answer 2

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.
The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself.

Answer 3

I don't know to be honest. But I do know it annoys me when atomic powers such as America etc tell other countries that they can't have the bomb. They've got it so what gives them the right to tell others they can't?
In my personal opinion, it was wrong to create atomic bombs, but somebody was bound to do it sooner or later. And everyone is too scared of the consequences to use them anyway.

Answer 4

there is no moral dilemna about the atomic bomb. It is a weapon that kills people. So is an M1 rifle. There was no moral dilemna about equipping soldiers with M1 rifles. Soldiers were sent out to kill the enemy, they were given the weapons best able to do this.

the atomic bomb was used to destroy japanese cities. But we had been doing that as best we could with other bombs. More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo then from either atomic bomb. There was no moral dilemna about those bombing raids. Bombing their cities was seen as a way to win the war.

Creating an artificial distinction between the atomic bomb and another weapon is silly.

There is a moral dilemna about requiring Japan to surrender unconditionally. That requirement delayed the end of the war. Japan was willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped, but only if they were guaranteed that they could retain their Emperor. The U.S. refused. That decision has a moral dilemna.

Answer 5

No it was not right. But using it was unforgivable. The scientists that made it signed a petition against its use. But it was ignored by the military and politicians. One thing I found pretty interesting in reading about this. You heard of the Kyoto Treaty of course. Kyoto was one of the Japanese cities on the list to be hit with it. But the Secretary of Defense, I think his name was Stanton, nixed that idea because prior to the war he had spent his Honeymoon there and he had too many good memories of the place. So are the ways great decisions are made that spare the life's of thousands of people and kill thousands of others in their place. For of course another city was chosen to suffer. OH, the Japanese were beaten and wanted to surrender. They were talking with the Russians trying to have them act as intermediates between the U.S. and themselves. But the Russians dragged their feet about the discussions. The Russians had interests in Japan too. They were on the verge of invading Japan themselves. The U.S. were aware of Japan's wish to surrender. But dropped the bombs anyway. This is History look it up.

Answer 6

Considering Iwo Jima was a sneak preview of what a possible invasion of Japan would be like the bomb was a neccessary evil.

Sometimes you must commit a small wrong to prevent a greater one.

Answer 7

you really can't stop the advancement of science - I mean animals have been cloned for pete's sake!

I personally believe that yes, they were right. The problem is, that now, these weapons are in the hands of those who are not of a sound mind. (N Korea). But it makes me feel better to know we have the technology in the event we need to use it to defend ourselves.