The Principle of Proportionality in the Use of Force
The proportionality in the use of force was excessive for both America and Japan, as both countries disregarded the Jus in Bello principle of ‘matching force for force’. Maiese suggests that, “the injury caused should be proportional to the objective desired, and…the extent and violence of warfare must be tempered to minimize destruction and casualties.” (Maiese, 2015).
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour early in the war occurred because the Japanese military commanders knew that their only hope to win the war against the massively powerful Americans lay in, “striking early and decisively, and hoping that by doing so they would hurt the Americans badly enough that the Americans would quickly choose to make a peace that would be suitable for Japan’s interests.” (Grimsrud, 2015). Even though the Japanese had sent the Americans an official declaration of war (although it was coded) before they bombed Pearl Harbour, the severity of the bombing by the Japanese crippled the Americans severely, and, “prevented America’s immediate involvement in WW2.” (USHMM, 2015). This gave Japan some much needed time to, “ready their troops and start taking control of important locations.” (USHMM, 2015). Japan began to radically conquer many Asian countries and cities, including the Guam and Wake Islands in December 1941, the falling of the Philippines into Japanese hands in early 1942, and in quick succession after, Hong Kong, Malaya, the Dutch East Indies, Burma, and Singapore (USHMM, 2015). America, by mid -1942 was only just beginning to be ready to face the Japanese troops, and it wasn’t until then that the Allies began to, “halt the Japanese advances.” (USHMM, 2015). The bombing of Pearl Harbour saw 188 U.S planes and other aircraft destroyed, and approximately 2,500 American casualties (USHMM, 2015). Considering there was virtually no resistance to this attack, it can be concluded that the law of proportionality of the use of force was broken by the Japanese.
Even though Japan may have violated the Jus in Bello law of proportionality, the violation was minor compared to America’s total disregard of the same principle. Two different viewpoints are maintained by those who argue for and against the use of the atomic bomb as an example of a violation of the Jus in Bello law of proportionality in the use of force. Some, such as Father Wilson Miscamble, author of The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs and the Defeat of Japan (2011), argues that, “Truman’s use of the bomb should be seen as his choosing the least awful of the options available to him.” (Prager University, 2015). This argument is solely based around the fact that a full scale invasion of Japan would have, “killed many more people in the long run than what the atomic bomb did.” (Prager University, 2015). However this is not necessarily true. By the time the atomic bomb had been dropped on Japan, the Japanese were already holding discussions on whether they should surrender or not (Grimsrud, 2015). Ted Grimsrud disagrees with Father Miscamble’s argument, and claims that, “The Japanese…simply did not have the firepower and resources…to resist the ever-expanding American war machine.” (Grimsrud, 2015). He also claims that because the American’s made unconditional surrender mandatory, the outcome required, “inflicting immense damage on the enemies to bring them to the point of utter obeisance,” which Grimsrud argues, “surely violates the criterion of proportionality and almost surely violate the criterion of non-combatant immunity.” (Grimsrud, 2015).
By using the atomic bomb, the Americans violated the law of proportionality in more ways than one, as, “weapons that cannot discriminate between civilians and soldiers cannot be used in war,” “weapons that cause long-term environmental damage are prohibited,” and “damage and contamination of crops, livestock, and drinking water is prohibited.” (Maiese, 2015). The atomic bomb’s effects align with each of these statements, concluding that the American certainly violated the law of proportionality. The circumstances surrounding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour also lay testament to Japan’s violation of the Jus in Bello law of proportionality.
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour early in the war occurred because the Japanese military commanders knew that their only hope to win the war against the massively powerful Americans lay in, “striking early and decisively, and hoping that by doing so they would hurt the Americans badly enough that the Americans would quickly choose to make a peace that would be suitable for Japan’s interests.” (Grimsrud, 2015). Even though the Japanese had sent the Americans an official declaration of war (although it was coded) before they bombed Pearl Harbour, the severity of the bombing by the Japanese crippled the Americans severely, and, “prevented America’s immediate involvement in WW2.” (USHMM, 2015). This gave Japan some much needed time to, “ready their troops and start taking control of important locations.” (USHMM, 2015). Japan began to radically conquer many Asian countries and cities, including the Guam and Wake Islands in December 1941, the falling of the Philippines into Japanese hands in early 1942, and in quick succession after, Hong Kong, Malaya, the Dutch East Indies, Burma, and Singapore (USHMM, 2015). America, by mid -1942 was only just beginning to be ready to face the Japanese troops, and it wasn’t until then that the Allies began to, “halt the Japanese advances.” (USHMM, 2015). The bombing of Pearl Harbour saw 188 U.S planes and other aircraft destroyed, and approximately 2,500 American casualties (USHMM, 2015). Considering there was virtually no resistance to this attack, it can be concluded that the law of proportionality of the use of force was broken by the Japanese.
Even though Japan may have violated the Jus in Bello law of proportionality, the violation was minor compared to America’s total disregard of the same principle. Two different viewpoints are maintained by those who argue for and against the use of the atomic bomb as an example of a violation of the Jus in Bello law of proportionality in the use of force. Some, such as Father Wilson Miscamble, author of The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs and the Defeat of Japan (2011), argues that, “Truman’s use of the bomb should be seen as his choosing the least awful of the options available to him.” (Prager University, 2015). This argument is solely based around the fact that a full scale invasion of Japan would have, “killed many more people in the long run than what the atomic bomb did.” (Prager University, 2015). However this is not necessarily true. By the time the atomic bomb had been dropped on Japan, the Japanese were already holding discussions on whether they should surrender or not (Grimsrud, 2015). Ted Grimsrud disagrees with Father Miscamble’s argument, and claims that, “The Japanese…simply did not have the firepower and resources…to resist the ever-expanding American war machine.” (Grimsrud, 2015). He also claims that because the American’s made unconditional surrender mandatory, the outcome required, “inflicting immense damage on the enemies to bring them to the point of utter obeisance,” which Grimsrud argues, “surely violates the criterion of proportionality and almost surely violate the criterion of non-combatant immunity.” (Grimsrud, 2015).
By using the atomic bomb, the Americans violated the law of proportionality in more ways than one, as, “weapons that cannot discriminate between civilians and soldiers cannot be used in war,” “weapons that cause long-term environmental damage are prohibited,” and “damage and contamination of crops, livestock, and drinking water is prohibited.” (Maiese, 2015). The atomic bomb’s effects align with each of these statements, concluding that the American certainly violated the law of proportionality. The circumstances surrounding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour also lay testament to Japan’s violation of the Jus in Bello law of proportionality.