Monday, November 9, 2015

The Morals Of Nuclear Weaponry

     In the movies "Fat Man and Little Boy" and "Gojira" the topic of morals regarding the first two atomic bombs dropped on Japan is looked at in two perspectives. On the side of "Fat Man and Little Boy" it portrays it as a neccisary evil that would end further bloodshed in the pacific, even if many of the scientists disagreed with the use of the weapon on Japan. In "Gojira" the so-called oxygen destroyer is a weapon of mass destruction that no doubtedly represents the Atomic Bombs. In the Film they use the Oxygen Destroyer to defeat Godzilla despite the residual destruction of the life in the harbor. This is done to prevent anymore destruction at the hands of Godzilla even though the scientist that created it didn't want to use it untill a peaceful use could be found. Notice any similarities? The scientists of the Manhatten Project knew it would be destructive, but did it to prevent further war, and the scientist used his Oxygen Destroyer, that he wanted to make into a peaceful device, to stop Godzilla. Certainly the movies displayed similar and yet differing views, one in favor of the bombs and one criticizing their use. 

     If I were a scientist and I knew that my research was applied to weapons I wouldn't be against it, this of course sounds cruel, however, the advancement of weapons can lead to less civilian collateral and safer handling than weapons in the past. Sure some applications could be producing more powerful weapons, but in producing more powerful weapons the less likely they are to be used. The principle of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has kept our nuclear weapons from being fired due solely to the fact that other powerful nations have comparable weapons and our using of nukes could lead to them being used against us. Researching science with weapon applications is certainly not without danger or risk of it being deployed en masse, yet you would have to hope that it leads to a peaceful resolution or made current weapons safer.

1 comment:

  1. You appear to be walking a fine line. You're willing to work on WMD, but only to make them safer or more precise (less collateral damage). Does that mean you wouldn't work to develop newer, more powerful weapons?