The principles of jus ad bellum (“justice of war”) and jus in bello (“justice in war”) are the fundamental principles of the Just War Theory, which is the military ethical doctrine that justifies the reasons and methods of war. Each principle has a set of criteria that must be met in order for the act of war and conduct in war to be considered morally justifiable. Ethicists and historians question whether the use of the nuclear bombs in Japan met the necessary and reasonable criteria of the jus ad bellum principle as well as the discrimination and proportionality criteria of jus in bello. As nuclear proliferation continues to be one of the greatest threats to international security, President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima
…show more content…
Thus, the Nazis were able to quickly rebuild and mobilize their military with staunch public support, subsequently creating the Second World War. The Allied powers were afraid Japan would do the same without an unconditional surrender. As “no state can be sure that another state will not use its offensive military capability to attack the first state,” (Mearsheimer, 2001), the “unconditional surrender” was a necessary and indispensable war aim to secure peace after the war (Frank, 2014). Liberalists, such as Michael Walzer, see a stark difference between Nazi Germany and Japan, arguing that though it was necessary for Germany, the unconditional surrender for Japan was unnecessary. Rather, it should only be used in situations where a state is “actively hostile to the very existence of entire peoples,” (Walzer, 1997). However, the Japanese war objective was to “secure the resources of Southeast Asia…and to establish a ‘Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity’ sphere under a Japanese hegemony” (Coakley, 2001). It was under their expansionist ideals and war aims, that citizens of their conquests were enslaved and millions of lives were lost with complete disregard from the Japanese. Furthermore, they initiated the war the United States, a non-Asian country, as an offensive measure to obtain these war aims (2001). Therefore, their unconditional surrender was a reasonable war objective from the Allied
Thus, the Nazis were able to quickly rebuild and mobilize their military with staunch public support, subsequently creating the Second World War. The Allied powers were afraid Japan would do the same without an unconditional surrender. As “no state can be sure that another state will not use its offensive military capability to attack the first state,” (Mearsheimer, 2001), the “unconditional surrender” was a necessary and indispensable war aim to secure peace after the war (Frank, 2014). Liberalists, such as Michael Walzer, see a stark difference between Nazi Germany and Japan, arguing that though it was necessary for Germany, the unconditional surrender for Japan was unnecessary. Rather, it should only be used in situations where a state is “actively hostile to the very existence of entire peoples,” (Walzer, 1997). However, the Japanese war objective was to “secure the resources of Southeast Asia…and to establish a ‘Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity’ sphere under a Japanese hegemony” (Coakley, 2001). It was under their expansionist ideals and war aims, that citizens of their conquests were enslaved and millions of lives were lost with complete disregard from the Japanese. Furthermore, they initiated the war the United States, a non-Asian country, as an offensive measure to obtain these war aims (2001). Therefore, their unconditional surrender was a reasonable war objective from the Allied