The argument presented in the “Petition to the president of the United States” is quite successfully crafted and factual. Given the extensive destructive nature and long-term effects of atomic bombs, the president should have practiced extreme restraint in authorizing the usage of atomic bombs. Why would someone use a weapon whose radiation effects are bound to genetically affect successive generations of any survivors? What authority would someone have as to deliberately taint the genes of an entire generation? It is plain inhumane to use atomic bombs on any animal or plant let alone a human being. Scores should always be settled with their propagators never with the innocent. Given this scenario, and the alternative warfare channels availed by technology, the argument sustained in the petition to the president is credible and deserves commendation.
The atomic bomb should only be used in extreme cases of defense and never as an offense weapon. Japan was weak militarily and the main reason why the US attacked Japan was to prove its military might given that its opponents, Germany and Russia were developing atomic weapons (Poolos, 34). Russia had set August 9 1945 as the date the Japanese were supposed to surrender lest they attack and it is ridiculous that the US was set to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima on August 6 and 9th (Walker, 316). The US could have waited for the Russians to conquer Japan on their behalf. The US ought not to have resorted to the use of the atomic bomb because Japan had not been given an opportunity to surrender.
The US presents itself as a model for human rights to the rest of the world and as such it should not harm any civilians or violate any of their human rights. It is apparent that the US acts as the world’s “moral compass” when it comes upholding of democracy and human rights and democracy. The use of the atomic bomb would result in massive loss of innocent civilian lives and further affect subsequent generations by altering genetic make-ups of survivors (Walker, 316). This would be inhumane and massive violation of human rights which would compel other countries to develop and use their weapons. As such, the US president should have eschewed from authorizing the use of atomic bombs.
The use of the atomic bomb was illegal. On September 39, 1938, the League of Nations had issued a unanimous decision outlawing the intentional bombing of civilians. According to Walker, the League of Nations outlawed the bombing of military objectives from the air and the use of bacterial or chemical methods of warfare had been termed contrary to international law (314). The atomic bomb had been categorized as a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) and its use had been expressly outlawed (316). As such, it was illegal for the president to authorize for the Japanese bombings.
There were other alternatives to the use of the atomic bomb. President Truman ought to have warned and arranged for a demonstration of the atomic bomb to the Japanese and other countries such as Germany and Russia. The demonstration could have proved to the Japanese the folly of engaging in war with a militarily superior country. The president could also have waited for Russia to attack Japan and force them to “unconditional surrender” on all resistance and attacks such as the one on Pearl Harbor (Poolos, 23). Alternatively if the Americans allowed the Japanese to keep their emperor, this would make them feel respected an independent country and they would “unconditionally surrender” military resistance. This would have resulted in minimal loss of lives and retained the image of the US as a true model of human rights maintenance and democracy.
Although America is a superpower, it does not have the right to use weapons of mass destruction. America had always maintained the atomic bomb as a secret weapon. There were no rules, limits, and laws by world countries on the usage of WMDs. The fact that the USA had unrestricted control on the usage of the atomic bomb meant that it was taking extreme advantage of its superiority to the disadvantage of innocent people. The bomb had only been tested and evaluated by American scientists who were biased in reporting its destructive and genetic impacts to victims of its attack (Walker, 320). The president should have resorted to the use of slightly superior bombs and related artillery to defeat the Japanese who were almost giving up the fight at the time of the atomic bombings.
Conclusion
In support of the argument brought put in the essay, “a petition to the president of the US” it is important to note the following. The atomic bomb should only be used in extreme cases of defense and never as an offense weapon. As evidenced by numerous historical accounts of the US atomic bombings, Japan was never a real threat and other alternatives such as continued conventional bombing, waiting for Russia to attack Japan among others could have worked without harming the lives of thousands of innocent people. The bombings were also illegal and the fact that the US is a superpower did not give it a right to use the weapons. Notably too is the fact that the US presents itself as a model for human rights to the rest of the world and as such it should not harm any civilians or violate any of their human rights. As such, the petition to the president bore factual and credible details that ought to have swayed President Truman to refrain from ordering the atomic bomb attacks.
Works Cited
Poolos, Jamie. The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. New York: Chelsea House, 2008. Print.
Walker, J. Samuel. "Recent Literature On Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search For Middle Ground." Diplomatic History 29.2 (2005): 311-334. Print.
