Critical Perspective Analysis of President Obama’s Speech
In his speech given in the Japanese city Hiroshima, United States President Barack Obama reflects upon the tragedy of World War II - specifically the event in which the U.S.A bombed the city using nuclear means, causing mass devastation and taking an enormous amount of innocent lives. A key element regarding Obama’s speech includes his perspective on nuclear warfare, as he expresses the belief that the use of nuclear weaponry should be halted on a global scale. This belief is supported by his reminiscence of all the lives lost due to the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the moral dilemma that nuclear weapons pose. Obama’s speech can be interpreted through numerous perspectives, …show more content…
He states, “The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations” (Obama 2016). By introducing this statement, Obama acknowledges the economic differences and inequalities that are apparent on an international scale. If the countries that are at war are economically prosperous, it is very likely that the effects of the war will be severely detrimental to many actors involved. This is apparent as wealthy countries have spending that is directly put towards military enhancement, weaponry, and so on. The fact that the USA in World War II was a wealthy state was what enabled nuclear weapons to be built and collected. Essentially, the wealthier a state is, the more means of protection and production of war it will have. Because these nations can adopt more power than states that face economic uncertainty, they have the opportunity to oppress poorer …show more content…
He has stated, “How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause” (Obama 2016). At this point, Obama is questioning a moral dilemma regarding how individuals or states are able to rationalize the terror and destruction of war, merely at the expense of economic gain. In a capitalist society, many states would justify war based on economic gain, and simply attempt to mitigate the effects of waging this war. This is due to the fact that to many elites, war was a large source of income, and it propelled certain businesses and industries. For example, the production of war materials greatly influenced many economies during times of war. It is apparent that war is fought under the watchful eye of the rich, but the poor face the true consequences. For example, in past times of war, elites and leaders may have made decisions regarding where to attack the enemy geographically. It has become apparent that as the focus of the war shifted from military battle to destroying entire populations and cities, common civilians and combatants face the greatest consequences of war. It is apparent that even in these times of war, one’s class and placement on the economic spectrum influences the effects that war will have on that
In his speech given in the Japanese city Hiroshima, United States President Barack Obama reflects upon the tragedy of World War II - specifically the event in which the U.S.A bombed the city using nuclear means, causing mass devastation and taking an enormous amount of innocent lives. A key element regarding Obama’s speech includes his perspective on nuclear warfare, as he expresses the belief that the use of nuclear weaponry should be halted on a global scale. This belief is supported by his reminiscence of all the lives lost due to the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the moral dilemma that nuclear weapons pose. Obama’s speech can be interpreted through numerous perspectives, …show more content…
He states, “The world war that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations” (Obama 2016). By introducing this statement, Obama acknowledges the economic differences and inequalities that are apparent on an international scale. If the countries that are at war are economically prosperous, it is very likely that the effects of the war will be severely detrimental to many actors involved. This is apparent as wealthy countries have spending that is directly put towards military enhancement, weaponry, and so on. The fact that the USA in World War II was a wealthy state was what enabled nuclear weapons to be built and collected. Essentially, the wealthier a state is, the more means of protection and production of war it will have. Because these nations can adopt more power than states that face economic uncertainty, they have the opportunity to oppress poorer …show more content…
He has stated, “How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause” (Obama 2016). At this point, Obama is questioning a moral dilemma regarding how individuals or states are able to rationalize the terror and destruction of war, merely at the expense of economic gain. In a capitalist society, many states would justify war based on economic gain, and simply attempt to mitigate the effects of waging this war. This is due to the fact that to many elites, war was a large source of income, and it propelled certain businesses and industries. For example, the production of war materials greatly influenced many economies during times of war. It is apparent that war is fought under the watchful eye of the rich, but the poor face the true consequences. For example, in past times of war, elites and leaders may have made decisions regarding where to attack the enemy geographically. It has become apparent that as the focus of the war shifted from military battle to destroying entire populations and cities, common civilians and combatants face the greatest consequences of war. It is apparent that even in these times of war, one’s class and placement on the economic spectrum influences the effects that war will have on that