Monday, August 18, 2008


A few days ago me and a couple of friends were discussing the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of my friends pointed out that even if Truman's motives were simply to keep Japan out of the hands of Stalin, it may not have been a bad deal for Japan.

I agreed with this because the odds of your life being worsened by one of the two bombs was pretty low, while the probably that your life would be worsened by a Soviet Occupation would be near certain. It's true that no outcome is worse than instant death, but I still feel it's a bet that most people would be willing to take.

A majority of the people that I was talking with agreed with me. The dissenters argued that taking a such a large number of lives in a blink of an eye was morally wrong, no matter the circumstance. I think that most the people at my University would also take this position. I also believe that most economists would agree with my position. We all face trade-offs every day, why should this be immoral just because it's on such a larger scale?

No comments: