This document discusses the fairness of war through an analysis of World War 2 and the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. It argues that war is never truly fair as the decision to go to war is often made by a small group of leaders without proper consultation of citizens. Those who suffer most from the effects of war also often have little connection to the original conflict. While countries may claim victory in war establishes superiority, such victories come at tremendous human cost and long-term suffering for the losing country. The document concludes that fairness is rarely achieved in war as many factors like capitalism, humanism, and strategic beliefs influence the outcomes over human concerns.

1. How Fair Is War in a Society?
- See more at: http://www.customwritingservice.org/blog/how-fair-is-war-in-a-society
The quote that all is fair in love and war (Paul Harper) is commonly cited. Fairness has socially
become a question of democracy and its influences especially in the face of conflict. Ideally,
fairness is defined as the balance between human intent and action that can be justified. Fairness
covers the subtle acts of justice in resolving conflict. In the context of a war, fairness becomes an
elusive pursuit in spite of many organizations becoming endeared to certain variances in a bid to
derive a fair act of war within a particular country or region.
This essay highlights the various dimensions of fairness using the context of world war two and
the use of the atomic bomb in Japanese territories of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 by the
Americans. Such actions of war and the use of the atomic bomb, continue to affect many
Japanese people to date. This questions the sense of using such weapons during warring times
despite the effects they have on many innocent people including those that have anything to do
with the war. War is never fair especially considering the large number of causalities who in
most cases do not even have anything to do with the conflict. In Japan, certain areas still suffer
the atomic effects showing the magnitude of the assault sixty-eight years after the incident.
First, the decision to enter into war for many countries is often settled upon by a few select
leaders. In a democratic society with leaders duly elected by the people, the question of
representation is a determinant of the inclusivity of each citizen of a country involved in a war.

2. However, not every leader passes with unanimous support in many cases, and majority of the
leaders just manage to garner a simple majority as this is what is required to steer them into
power.
In some cases, some countries have autocratic leaders who lack the goodwill and interest of the
people. These leaders often assume power and begin making critical decisions that affect the
country, including the decision to go to war without properly consulting with the majority of the
populace in the country. In the case of Japan and World War 2, the feud between the allies and
the axis was a question of forces joining the warring parties with the aim of conquering the
opposing agents (Paul Harper).
The decision did not reflect the general mood of the people at that time even as the stakes were
decided on their behalf. Later on those who suffered the effects of the war most did not even
have any major links to the national crises and this shows the dehumanizing aspect of war as it is
anti humane and very unfair to the ideals of the mainstream majority in a country.
Secondly, many have argued that a war won is a victory for the country and often, many “great”
countries create a pretext of superiority because of the wins garnered from wars. The United
States has long claimed superiority because of its involvement in making a determinate assault
on the Hiroshima Nagasaki saga (Paul Harper). Such a victory comes with the deaths and
decades of continuous suffering long after the war is over and in most cases the country that
suffers the assault becomes depressed economically, socially, and politically, and struggles to
recover from such condition. Humanism conceptually upholds many individual rights as a
critical need to ensure proper options that derive and preserve human dignity. Victory in the
humanistic approach envisions a more personal victory regardless of the collective nuance of the
situation.
The capitalistic ideology and the scramble for power through capitalistic gains can determine an
element of how nations interact on a terrible edge. The economic categorization of nations are
part of a way to create division and reaction through which many nations try to assert their
authority and stand.
One of the major causes of the WW2 was the egocentric ambition of Hitler to conquer the whole
world and have Germans, whom he regarded as the “pure” breed, dominate the world. Such a
desire emanated from the ego of one man, who spread his ideologies to others through his
charisma and charms. The world war took a death toll and the struggle that rapidly disintegrated
into a superiority index with many nations taking sides in the famous Axis and Ally forces.
The greed to dominate and conquer was very strong and it blinded the nations from recognizing
the urge to preserve human dignity and respect. Capitalism has been a key driver of unfairness in
the world’s history as the nations take up subtle actions with the aim of gaining victory and
superiority in the legal context. With such capitalistic motives, wars can never be fair platforms
because they form a higher ground that controls the human actions. From the context of WW2,
the United States first adopted a non-interference policy because they sought to preserve their
sovereignty and benefit from trading in ammunition and foodstuff with the warring countries.

3. However the Japanese intrusion to such economic and sociopolitical state of affairs definitely
necessitated an attack. It must be noted that prior to the American attack, the Japanese had sunk a
variety of US fleet and even bombed the Pearl Harbor at Hawaii and these nuances clouded the
American objectivity and rationality to the human feeling hence resulting in the magnanimous
disaster. In this context, fairness for the US was regarded as hitting back at the entire Japanese
population.
In conclusion, fairness in its right sense never achieved a mark but in the context of a war, a
combination of actions work together to determine the spirit of a nation. From the essay, it is
established that many dimensions and factors determine the results of a war and these may
include capitalism, humanism, and socialist beliefs. From these, fairness and society are an
illusion that can rarely be achieved.
Works Cited
Paul Harper. Underground Network: The first casualty of war is truth. 10 April 2008. Web. 17
Oct. 2013.
- See more at: http://www.customwritingservice.org/blog/how-fair-is-war-in-a-society