Moral Arguments Against A-Bombs

I support the moral arguments against the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the harm and suffering that many people went through.  I think that it was just to end the war because we saved many lives, but I think that the bomb was immoral.  I think that it was hard to read these articles because of the devastation caused and how long the people suffered.  I think that when reading the different testimonies about people who lived through the bombings, they went through so much pain so we could see what kind of devastation we could cause.  People watched family members burn alive and had their skin torn off, and now live with the scars everyday as a reminder of just how awful the atomic bombing really was. 

                The moral arguments against the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki take into account the stated purpose of the United States and place is against logic. That purpose has been disputed by the Japanese who were affected by the bombing. The victims feel that the United States violated the principles of human decency with the dropping of the bombs. When compared to the conventional bombs used at the time, both types of Atomic bombs were superior in their destructive force. The destruction was beyond the force necessary to achieve the aims of the US. Not only was the impact sudden in the killing of close to 200,000 immediately after the dropping, but the radiation from the bomb created lasting health problems. It is known that when war occurs, collateral damage will occur, but the targets should never be non-combatants. In the case of the nuclear bombs, there was no discrimination in the choice of targets as the bomb would clearly affect men, women and children. In doing so, the United States abandoned all pretense of civility in war and broke the moral code associated with the practice. The destruction and moral grievances associated with the atomic bombs outweighed the practical reasons that came with the dropping of the bombs.