A while back, I found a video on Youtube discussing the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in World War 2. I found the video informative and interesting, and it got me thinking. My thoughts had returned (this is a topic I've mulled over over the years) to a difficult (and probably controversial) question: Was it worth it to drop two atomic bombs on Japan?
I'm not sure that there is a good answer to that question. It did help bring about a swift ending to the war on the Pacific front. But did the end result justify the means by which it was achieved? Maybe.
One of the problems with the question as it is is that no matter what direction was taken, there would have been many deaths (there was a war going on after all). In the end, it all comes down to how many? The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki claimed over 100,000 lives (counting those killed outright in the explosions, and the many more that fell ill to the radiation in the following years). But what if we hadn't used the bombs?
For perspective, Japanese forces were using suicidal tactics (kamikaze pilots; Kaiten torpedoes) to take out as many enemy soldiers as they could. Many soldiers were not merely willing to lay down their lives for their country, but were actively ending them in order to take as many lives of opposing soldiers as they could. A dangerous tactic - you're gambling that the other side will back down before you lose too many soldiers. If they don't, you will have put yourself in a real tight spot, what with most of your forces now being dead. In the face of such adversity, drastic measures are given more serious consideration.
I am reminded of the phrase coined by Leibniz, "the best of all possible worlds". He puts forward the idea that the world we live in is the best of all possible permutations of all worlds that could exist. I've found this idea rather bleak and depressing, due to the hidden message within: if the world had been made any differently, it would be even worse than it is now. This is something I strongly imagine would have been the case; had the bombs not been used, the War there very likely would have been even more casualties.
I am also reminded of a scene in the book "Watchmen" by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. As we see in a flashback, shortly before costumed heroics were outlawed, the was a large riot taking place in a large city. Dr. Manhattan teleported a portion of the rioters back to their respective homes when they would not go willingly. A few people died of heart attacks from the shock of suddenly being somewhere else. Dr. Manhattan commented on this, stating that he knew that people would die if he did it, but he went through with it anyway because this course of action would produce the fewest casualties. It didn't matter what was done, some people wouldn't make it; the best that could be done was minimizing the numbers.
In the end, I'm not sure if using the Bombs was the right answer, or if there even was a right answer. People can (and probably have) spent hours arguing back and forth about the morality of using such deadly weapons. But, moral or not, we did it. What's done is done, and no matter how much we might wish to, we cannot change the past. But we can learn from it.
You can learn from the Past, to guide your actions in the Present, to build towards a better Future.
Video link: https://youtu.be/SHZAaGidUbg
No comments:
Post a Comment