Anscombe and Truman’s Decision to Drop the Bomb

As G.E.M. Anscombe notes in his essay criticizing Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the intention was “to kill the innocent as a means to an end” (3)—the end being the unconditional surrender of the Japanese and the termination of WWII in terms favorable to the West. The question of whether those means were moral meets with another question: whether the desired end of the West could have been achieved by any other means. Anscombe points out that Truman’s policy to make war on the innocent stood out in stark contrast to his earlier policy of ensuring that “civil populations would not be attacked” (1). With the war almost at an end, Truman decided to show the full force of American military might and detonate two atomic bombs over Japan. The act was merciless and oriented towards a doctrine of shock and awe—not towards bringing about a lasting peace. Thus, even though Anscombe accepts that argument that the bomb dropping saved American lives, this does not excuse the fact that it was a deliberate act of murder. As Anscombe writes, “the lives of the innocent are the actual point of society, so the fact that in some other way they may be a nuisance (troublesome to look after, for example) does not justify the state in getting rid of them….[T]he blood of the innocent cries to heaven for vengeance” (6). For that reason alone it is permissible... Anscombe juxtaposes state-sanctioned methods of life-termination (such as the death penalty) with the act of killing civilians in war to make his point. In the case of the former, the death sentence is given as a form of punishment for a crime committed. The person executed is found guilty of an offense worthy of capital punishment. In the case of the latter, those exterminated on not judged to have been guilty of any offense. Their “crime” is merely that they live in a country that is at war with another country. Instead of the countries fighting it out on the battle field as is the custom of war, one country embarks on a decision to engage in total war, which is the destruction of everything dear to the enemy—including the lives and cities of its populace. While such an action may certainly have the desired effect of the victor, it cannot be said to be a moral means to an end because it violates the moral and social laws that allow a society to stand in the first place. Without moral and social order, the justification for a nation to…