Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Atomic Bombs Justified or not?

lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 3:40:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 8:06:28 AM, mrkhalil wrote:
use evidence to back up your claim.

Them existing or the Atomic Bombings of Japan?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 4:43:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 8:06:28 AM, mrkhalil wrote:
use evidence to back up your claim.

The use of an atomic weapon could be justified if the total loss of life and resources from use of the weapon is actually less than the total loss of life and resources from not using the weapon. This is an economic justification.

The use of an atomic weapon can be justified from the perspective of the state which employs it if that state can win the war in no other way.

The use of an atomic weapon can be justified if the side using the weapon to win the war is actually fighting for a just cause, AND the other side is fighting for an unjust cause. This may only be true if the side fighting for the unjust cause poses a grave threat to a preferred configuration of states, and the change in said configuration will result in greater decrease in social welfare than is caused by dropping the bomb or bombs.

The use of an atomic weapon may not be justified if a sizable percentage of those killed are noncombatants. If a bomb is dropped on an army of 200,000 camped in a village of noncombatants numbering 100, and the army is about to cross the border into the defensive state, and if the army does so it will easily capture the state, the killing of the 100 noncombatants may be justified. If the majority of those killed by the bomb are noncombatants, the killing may not be justified. On the other hand, offensive armies should not be allowed to use a city full of noncombatants as a shield to protect its army. If an army of 200,000 is camped in a city of 200,000 noncombatants, and the army is primed to cross the border of neighboring state and capture it, the neighboring state may be justified in dropping a bomb on the city if dropping the bomb prevents greater evil than it causes.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2014 5:14:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Rational state: one who acts in all cases toward self-preservation, and always maximizes total welfare/utility.

The use of an atomic weapon cannot be justified in the case of mutually assured destruction. If two warring states have enough bombs to each completely annihilate the other, and the technology to ascertain when the other has employed its weapons, and the time to employ its own weapons before the weapons of the other touch down, then neither state is justified in deploying weapons as doing so will result in mutually assured destruction. Some theorists believe that mutually assured destruction is a method of peace by stalemate. Moreover, no rational state will deploy nuclear weapons when mutual destruction is assured.

The offensive use of an atomic weapon cannot be justified by state A in this case:

State A: Has enough nuclear weapons to destroy only a small part of state B.
State B: Has enough nuclear weapons to effectively destroy all of state A.

In this scenario, A may only use a nuclear weapon in defense, if and only if use in defense would not provoke B to completely destroy A. A may never use nuclear weapons offensively against B. Such use would assure the complete annihilation of A. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which A could defensively use nuclear weapons against B that would not provoke B to respond with complete annihilation. Thus, it is possible that A is never justified in using nuclear weapons against B.

It follows that it may be justified to use nuclear weapons in a different sense of the word "use". If state A possesses nuclear weapons, state B may be deterred from attacking it offensively.

In the case of mutually assured destruction, two states (C and D) both have the capability to destroy the other should one side deploy a nuclear attack. Because stalemate is achieved, nuclear war is not possible between two rational states. If C decides to aggress against D, C is basically committing suicide. Thus, the development of nuclear stalemate is desirable if nuclear stalemate is preferable economically to war.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.