Atomic Bombings and WWII

• This document discusses ethical considerations in public policy, using case studies to illustrate different frameworks.
• Case studies include the decision to use the atomic bomb, the Iran-Contra Affair, and the Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (DIME).

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Truman & Hiroshima)

• In 1945, the US sought to end the war in the Pacific quickly and with minimal casualties against Japan, who had not surrendered
• The US had been capturing key territories through island-hopping
• Japan's military leaders were refusing to surrender, even after suffering heavy losses
• An invasion of Japan, known as Operation Downfall, would cause hundreds of thousands/millions of American casualties

Manhattan Project

• The Manhattan Project was a secret US research effort that developed nuclear weapons
• Two bombs were prepared and used:
  • Little Boy (uranium bomb) was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945,
  • Fat Man (plutonium bomb) was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

Decision to Drop the Bomb

• President Truman authorized the use of atomic bombs without prior warning to Japan.
• The goals were:
  • To force Japan's surrender.
  • To prevent a costly land invasion of Japan.
  • To demonstrate US military power, especially to the Soviet Union.

Effects of the bombings

• Hiroshima (August 6, 1945): Approximately 140,000 people were killed by the end of 1945 due to the direct blast, radiation, and fires; victims were mostly civilians, though there were some military targets, such as army headquarters
• Nagasaki (August 9, 1945): Approximately 70,000 people were killed by the end of 1945; hit a more industrial area but still caused mass civilian casualties
• Emperor Hirohito announced Japan's unconditional surrender on August 15, 1945
• WWII officially ended on September 2, 1945.

Ethical Frameworks for analyzing the bombing

• Just War Theory and the Doctrine of Double Effect are applied to determine if the bombings were justified.

Just War Theory

• A theory that evaluates the morality of war in two parts
  • Jus ad bellum ("Justice OF War") concerns whether the US was justified in waging war
    • The US was already at war with Japan following Pearl Harbor (1941).
    • Japan's leadership refused to surrender, despite multiple defeats
    • The bomb was dropped to end the war quickly and prevent more deaths.
  • Jus in bello ("Justice IN War") concerns the ethical conduct of the bombings
    • Discrimination Principle concerns military actions which should target combatants, not civilians
      • Hiroshima and Nagasaki were densely populated civilian areas, impacting mostly civilians despite the presence of military targets
    • Proportionality Principle concerns the harm caused, which must not exceed the military advantage gained
      • Supporters argue the bomb prevented a larger bloodbath
      • Critics argue the bomb was excessive and indiscriminate
• The bombings may have violated jus in bello due to the indiscriminate killing of civilians.

Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)

• DDE determines whether an action with both good and bad effects can be justified
• Four conditions must be met:
  • The act itself must be good or morally neutral
    • Destroying enemy military infrastructure is not inherently immoral
    • Deliberate attacks on civilians violate Just War Theory
  • The intended effect must be morally acceptable
    • The US wanted to force Japan's surrender and end the war.
    • The unintended effect was mass civilian deaths
  • The bad effect must not be intended (only foreseen)
    • Truman's administration intended to destroy military targets, but knew civilians would die.
  • Proportionality
    • Supporters argue the bombings saved millions of lives by preventing an invasion
    • Critics argue Japan was already close to surrender, making them unnecessary
• The bombings might not satisfy DDE since civilian harm was predictable and perhaps even intended.

Arguments for and against the bombing

• Justifications include that the bombing ended the war quickly, saved American and Japanese lives, demonstrated U.S. power, and was retaliation for Pearl Harbor
• Arguments against include mass civilian casualties, Japan being near surrender, available alternatives, and setting a dangerous precedent

Justifications after the bombing

• Truman: The bomb ended WWII and saved lives, forced Japan's surrender, and that Japan's refusal to surrender required extreme action
• Criticism: The bomb targeted civilians, violating Just War Theory; Japan was already weakened, and alternatives were not fully explored

Doctrine of Double Effect Verdict

• If Truman's goal was military victory, the bomb may be partially justified
• If the goal was intimidating the Soviet Union, then civilian deaths might have been fully unintended, making them unethical

Exam strategy for this case

• Identify the ethical problem
• Apply Just War Theory, evaluating jus ad bellum and jus in bello
• Apply the Doctrine of Double Effect to analyze intent, proportionality, and foreseen harm
• Weigh arguments for and against, and reach a conclusion

Final Takeaways

• The bombings raise fundamental ethical questions about war and morality
• Just War Theory suggests that while war itself was justified, the bombings may have violated ethical conduct in war, or jus in bello
• The Doctrine of Double Effect remains inconclusive, because if civilian harm was foreseeable and could have been avoided, then the bombings may not be justified
• Historical interpretations vary: some see the bomb as a necessary evil, while others see it as a war crime

The Iran-Contra Affair

• The Iran-Contra Affair (1980s) involved secret US government dealings with Iran and Nicaraguan rebels (the Contras) under President Reagan
• The scandal became public in 1986, revealing a covert operation that violated US laws and Congressional restrictions

Key events Leading to the scandal:

• US Hostages in Lebanon (1984–1985)
  • Several American citizens were kidnapped by Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group
  • Reagan wanted to negotiate their release but had publicly declared a no-negotiation policy with terrorists
• Arms Sales to Iran (1985–1986)
  • The US secretly sold weapons to Iran despite a US arms embargo and Iran's designation as a sponsor of terrorism
  • The goal was purportedly hostage release in Lebanon, but it violated US policy and was kept secret
• Funding the Nicaraguan Contras (1985–1986)
  • In Nicaragua, a socialist government (Sandinistas) was in power
  • The US backed the Contras fighting the Sandinistas
  • Congress banned US military aid to the Contras through the Boland Amendment (1982–1984)
  • Reagan officials illegally funneled money from the arms sales to fund the Contras.
• Exposure and Public Outrage (1986)
  • A Lebanese newspaper exposed the arms-for-hostages deal
  • The US government initially denied involvement, but later investigations proved the allegations
  • Key officials, including Lt. Colonel Oliver North and National Security John Poindexter took the fall
  • Congressional hearings (1987) showed extent of the deception.

Ethical issues

• Core questions are raised about political deception and democratic accountability
• When, if ever, is political deception justified?
• Should the government lie to protect national security?
• Does the end justify the means in foreign policy?
• Can leaders bypass democratic oversight for “the greater good”?

Bok's Justification for Deception

• Deception in politics can be justified only if there is public justification, non-deceptive alternatives have been exhausted, and the lie passes ethical scrutiny
• Application to the Iran-Contra Affair
  • There was no public consent to be decieved, as well as ignored legal and diplomatic channels
• The Iran-Contra Affair fails Bok's test, lacking public justification and alternatives

Kant's Deontological Ethics

• Kantian ethics follow the categorical imperative: Lying is always immoral because it treats people as means to an end, and moral rules must be universalized
  • In the Iran-Contra affair the U.S. government misled Congress and citizens.
• Kantian ethics condemn this as immoral

Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)

• Utilitarianism evaluates whether the good outweighs the harm: If deception leads to a better outcome, it may be justified, otherwise it is immoral
• Possible Benefits: Helped the Contras resist communism in Nicaragua and accelerated release of hostages
• Harms include the loss of public trust and violation of laws and a dangerous precedent

Key Verdicts

• Bok's Justification for Deception judged the Iran-Contra affair as unjustified due to the lack of public approval and alternatives
• Kants deontology declared it to be unjustified because lying is always immoral
• Utilitarianism deemed the affair as unjustified because the harm outweighed the benefits

Final Verdict

• All ethical testing failed, creating an unethical standing overall.
• Ethical erosion and a decrease of trust in the goverment was a consequence.

Exam Strategy for This Case:

• This involves defining the ethical problem, applying the ethical tests and reaching a conclusion.

Final Takeaways

• Highlights ethics, the deception, laws violated and democratic principles jeopardized

Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (DIME)

• The DIME case raises questions about informed consent and government responsibility, such as the ethical limits of social experiments on vulnerable populations
• From the 1960s and 1980s to test the effects of a Negative Income Tax (NIT) on low-income families
• Designed to assess how guaranteed income affected employment, household stability, and economic behavior

Negative Income Tax (NIT)

• Families below a certain income level received direct cash payments from the government, which unlike welfare, decreased gradually as people earned more
• Designed to provide a financial safety net while maintaining work incentives.
• Low-income families were randomly to receive NIT payments for a set period.
• The aim was to inform future welfare policies in the US.

Ethical Concerns

• Did participants fully understand the risks?, was it voluntary.and had the goverment provided enough information about potential risks and consequences?

Ethical Theories& Tests to Apply

• Ethical frameworks used to apply to DIME include informed consent, justification for deception, autonomy & manipulation, Kant's Denotological Ethics

Applying Ethical Frameworks

• Informed constent test - found that the dim experiment failed this test due to lack of transparency.
• Bok's test- this test was also unsuccessful, due to a lack of transparency and alternatives.

Verdict through Ethical Theories

• Informed Consent Test - was unjustified
• Bok'd framework - unjustified
• Autonomy Manipulation framework - unjustified
• Kants Denotology framework- unjustified
• Utilitarianism

Final Verdict

• All ethical tests failed due to a lack of information and transparency.

Exam strategy

• Involves defining the ethical problem, apply the ethical tests and reaching a conclusion.