|← "The Satellites"||Analyzing Rhetorical Appeal →|
This paper gives a critical analysis of Michael Walzer’s opinions on the bombing of Horoshima by the United States of America in 1945. According to Walzer, this war was unjust. In fact, he argues that the attack did not meet the minimum requirements of the military morals. Unlike the Israel Six Day War, this was a punitive aggressive act exclusively meant to meet unjustified ends and cause agonies to the Japanese.
However, I would like to disagree with him by strongly suggesting that this action was justified. First, it would be the most appropriate way of forcing Japan to surrender without any delay. Otherwise, the fight would have continued for a very long time. This helped to save the lives of at least 200,000 Japanese and US soldiers who would have died in case the war continued.
In addition, it would help to counteract the already emerging tension in Europe under the umbrella of the United Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR). In order to convince Stalin to behave, it was necessary that such a force had to be used. This was a valid reason because it would pave the way for American dominance in this region. As we all understand, this was as important to the US government as saving the lives of its troops.
However, I also condemn this attack because it was not well intentioned, but only meant to bring Japan to its knees. Besides, we all know that the Americans are very aggressive. They always destroy the lives of innocent people in other nations to justify their own demands. This is one of those attacks. However, instead of acting so brutally, it would have teamed up with its allies to force Japan to surrender or sign a treaty. This would end the war without killing more people.