Ethics of Development in a Global EnvironmentProfessor LusignanThe Bombing of Hiroshima and NagasakiBy Gene HuThe bombing of two heavily populated cities, which resulted in the deaths of morethan 100,000 civilians and an even greater number of casualties, cannot be easily justifiedregardless of the attack’s outcome. Thus, controversy still surrounds the American use ofatomic bombs against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an event that occurred over half a century ago. Many historians argue that the atomic bombing of the two Japanese cities won the war in the Pacific while others argue that at most it only accelerated Japan’s defeat, which to many was viewed as an unavoidable outcome. As a counter argument, many exponents of America’s decision to use atomic weapons against the Japanese populace contend that while it may be true that Japan’s defeat was inevitable, if the U.S. had not used atomic weapons against Japan, the use of ground troops would have been required. This type of assault on the Japanese homeland would have most likely resulted in up to 500,000 military casualties and an appalling level of civilian destruction. Thus, in terms of absolute utilitarianism, the use of atomic bombs against Japanese cities was the correct choice. However, opponents of the use of atomic bombs, many of who were scientists intimately linked to the development of such weapons, argue in retrospect that the use of atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki may in fact have been the first act of the Cold War.After much deliberation, a litigious Smithsonian Institute display of the Enola Gay, the military aircraft that dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wasnever revealed to the American population. The exhibit delineated the full story of U.S. officials’ decision to drop the two atomic bombs and the short term and long term effects of the use of atomic weaponry. Englehardt and Linenthal contend that the bombing ofHiroshima and Nagasaki was directed towards peace while their opponents argue that the atomic bombings brought “destruction and fear to the world.” (2)It is certain that America’s initial use of atomic weapons incited an era of fear of destruction. The Cold War was a struggle between two nuclear super powers. Both sidesfeared one another for their capacity to wipe out entire civilian populations with the use of their advanced nuclear weaponry. Because of this mutual fear for one’s enemy, many historians contend that the heightened level of apprehension actually maintained peace between the two countries and may have in fact prevented the use of nuclear weapons. If one country was in a dominant position over its enemies, it may have been more likely for greater super powers to use nuclear weapons more liberally. These historians also assert that the controlled use of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually resulted in peace. This is because the atomic weapons represented such an immense danger that reprisal or the prolongation of hostilities would be self-destructive. Thus, arguing for the continuance of war after the bombings would have been indefensible.It is clear now that the moral argument against the use of atomic weapons is inconsistent with the practical, utilitarian rationale for using nuclear arms. Albert Einstein, a major contributor to the creation of atomic weapons, best personifies this conflict between moral perspectives and realistic scenarios. Early on in his career, Professor Einstein was a pacifist who admonished the development of nuclear weapons. However, as he aged, Einstein changed his view on the development and use of atomic bombs. Early into World War II, two German physicists, Halm and Strassman, discoveredusing theoretical physics that it was possible to create atomic weapons. At first, ProfessorEinstein was dubious about the idea of using nuclear fission to release enormous amountsof energy. However, after studying Halm and Strassman’s work for several months, Einstein confirmed that the creation of atomic weapons was indeed possible. In 1939, Einstein met with two other theoretical physicists, Silzard and Wigner and declared that itwas possible for the Germans to create a nuclear weapon. Einstein, who intimately knew the destructive power an atom bomb could unleash on the world, wasted no time in informing U.S. officials of this newly developed potential threat. In fact, Einstein was so distressed by this development that “he was quite willing to sound the alarm even though it was quite possible that it was a false alarm.” (Pais: 217) Einstein wrote a detailed letter about the potential danger of this new atomic weapon and sent it immediately to President Franklin Roosevelt. After reading Einstein’sforewarning, President Roosevelt took immediate action. Roosevelt assembled a small group to “investigate the potential uses of the fission process.” (White and Gribbin, 238) This team eventually developed into what is now known as the famous Manhattan Project. Einstein was not directly involved with the Manhattan Project, the group that actually developed and created the atomic bombs that were unleashed on Japan. However, Einstein’s theoretical physics laid much of the groundwork for the development of the nuclear weapons. Also, Professor Einstein most certainly was the main impetus for President Roosevelt to look into the potential uses and dangers of atomic weapons. President Roosevelt was compelled enough by Einstein’s words that he actually allocated money and appointed task force members with the intention of harnessing the power of the fission process. Einstein took the research of the nuclear weapons so seriously that when President Roosevelt only assembled a small group at firstwith limited resources, Einstein wrote a second letter to the President beseeching him to increase his staff and funding.Einstein’s stance on the use of nuclear weapons was similar to those historians and philosophers who morally justify the use of weapons of mass destruction using a utilitarianism approach. Professor Einstein endorsed the use of such weapons, despite their destructive capacities, in the hopes of preventing a greater evil.Einstein had faced a serious moral dilemma when Silzard had asked him to give his support to the creation of an atomic weapons programme. In the space of a few years he had transformed his political view from extreme pacifist to