Thursday, August 19, 2004


Final response to 4 articles(Yuki Suzuki)

The authors, Mead, Hanson, Bennett and Eyad, defined and argued about war in each way. Mead defined war as two types as invented product by human and instinct. Whereas Hanson descibed war as "" War is eternal. It is part of human condition" (pp.680) in her essay. Those of four authors do not say that we have to seek for peaceful solution, not by war in the way just like stupid idealists want to adovocate. War should not be admired, but also should not be denied without knowing the meaning of war. In the sense, I agree with Bennett who said "I would not be surprised if, in historical retrospect, the Afghanisttan campaign were to qualify as one of the most just wars ever fought" in her essay. She underastand that wars only to kill innocent people should be forbidden, but war to fight for certain circumstances should be justified. Idealists, or pacifists just look at war itself, and they just blame for the result especially after the war. However, she insisted on the justification of wars, and without saying, she gave opportunities to think about the fact war made history just like 1789 France revolution or so etc, which we may forget. I know someone may claim that the murders could be justified if they were in certain circumstances. I do not intend to say that murders should be justified in any case, and in war. Murders do not make anything, except for anger, and grief, and they do not shape new history. That is the big difference between them. Therefore, I would like to regard justified wars as the ones that made our history.
My country, Japan is the first and hopefully last country to be attacked by the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After that, we Japan surrendered to U.S and other allied coutry like U.K. If I can borrow Benett's word, the atomic bomb both in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary, at least, Nagasaki after Hiroshima should not be attacked because U.S should know that Japan will surrender to U.N anyway, even if U.S do not attack by atomic bombs. Japan had lacked of their army power during Midway sea battle. However, U.S has another reason to experient atomic bombs power(thats why 2 different bombs used for Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and show the army power to the rest of world. The war, attacking by evil purpose should not be justified because it does not make anything. On the other hand, some may claim that Japan should not have fought with America, but Japan decided, rather had to fight with a big country even if Japan knew it was stupid. However, Japan had the reason to fight. Before Parl herver,
Japan knew the war for a certain purpose could make history. In history, Japan was the first Asian country that won the whites, in the battle with Russia, and that made Asian countries colonized by European countries fight for independence, so Japan's war made history. In WW2, Japan fought for Japan itself. U.S sent the notorious Hal notes to Japan, and that said that Japan have to surrender to us, leaving all right for areas Japan had fought for bty sacrificing many lives. Japan had history to be defended for itself, so decided to fight. The war has meaning and should be justified in a sense. Therefore, I really agree with Bennett.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?