History of the Atomic Bomb

Sample Solution

  Greetings Mr. President, I have been asked by you to research and advise on the various options available with respect to the use of atomic bombs and how best to proceed going forward. After careful consideration, it appears that there are several possible courses of action that could be taken; ultimately, however, I believe that it is vitally important for us to consider all ethical considerations before deciding upon a course of action.

The first option is for us to issue a warning or a demonstration of an atomic bomb in order to emphasize our capability and thus force Japan into surrendering without using an actual bomb. This approach would certainly demonstrate our military might and put pressure on Japan without actually having to use any weapons, which has some advantages from both a moral standpoint as well as from a political perspective. It could also set a precedent for future international relations regarding nuclear arms if we can show restraint in this instance. However, such an approach may not work if the Japanese do not take it seriously enough – they may choose not to surrender even after seeing evidence of our capabilities unless they believe that they will still receive favorable terms afterwards (e.g., no occupation). Another option we have is altering the Potsdam Proclamation so as to make more favorable terms towards Japan should they decide to accept it; this could potentially lead them towards surrendering since more lenient terms would be offered than those contained in the original proclamation. Altering the document itself could also provide additional motivation for them due to its symbolism – however, again this relies heavily on their willingness and ability/desire/need (depending on internal circumstances)to negotiate further down from what is being offered them now (which may be too little). Finally, we could opt instead for different targets when using actual atomic bombs; this would limit civilian casualties but would come at cost of military personnel deaths which presents its own ethical dilemma given current conventions on warfare conventions such as those found in Geneva Convention IV 1949 Article 33-37 (including reference point 35 concerning proportionality)[1] pertaining specifically prohibitting “wanton” destruction though such laws are often open-ended when applied during war-time ;[2] while it may seem like less blood shed overall by taking such route , yet implications must still be considered here . Additionally ,the choice of target affects whether or not Japan views itself as being under immediate threat which can further complicate matters . All these issues must be weighed carefully against each other before making any decision about which target(s) should be used . Taking all these factors into account , my suggestion is that your aim should be balancing two goals : First , achieving successful end of war with Japan through diplomatic means whenever possible ; Second , ensuring long term stability within international relations by setting example now regarding proper conduct during conflict regarding humane treatment towards prisoners etc . Such balance serves both ends equally . Whenever situation allows -we ought seek diplomatic solution over military retaliation ; otherwise striking only relevant target(s) while avoiding unnecessary civilian fatalities becomes utmost priority - lest become guilty ourselves of committing ‘ wan ton’ destruction mentioned earlier wherein case chances exist becoming subject matter similar treaties once again future time period thus creating cycle never ending hatred between nations rather then fostering real peace between them instead ? Furthermore given current circumstances – Japanese leaders likely demand drastic changes made within Proclamations contents before considering possibility genuine negotiation thus change shall need take place either way [3]; since case already stands - why not try add positive content along with negative ? In other words propose amendments include elements life after War improves standard living people affected — something worth fighting for ! In summary: We should strive wherever possible for diplomatic solutions prior resorting extreme tactics armed combat especially involving use new weapon technology available us today – Atomic Bombs . Secondly if comes time where no alternative present then administration needs carefully consider all ramifications involved selecting optimal target(s); doing so minimizes innocent deaths thereby complying humanitarian law convention hereinwhile simultaneously reducing risk potential wider impact scenario moving forward . Lastly modifying Potsdam Proclamation part complete package includes provisions improving everyday lives citizens affected - making process easier transition back normalcy post hostilities periods much quicker faster rate compared existing alternatives available currently concerning aforementioned topics discussed above report henceforth submitted humbly yours honor sir