Comparing the Effects of the A-Bomb and those of Torture

Given the first-hand accounts of Japanese survivors of the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki there are a number of morally important conditions that: 1) run parallel to those of torture or 2) possibly magnify the moral weight of the decision to drop the atom bomb. I will work off my argument against torture in my previous post: torture is morally impermissible as it violates a natural, inviolable (in the sense that it cannot be lost) human right to not be tortured. I will conclude that dropping the atom bomb was impermissible due to its similarity to torture and that the combination other conditions would make it impermissible even if there was no element of torture.

Regarding the conditions that run parallel to those of torture, the atom bomb seems to have wreaked both severe psychological and physical pain on the survivors. The survivors talk of the skin on their arms hanging off their hands in tatters, people vomiting blood, burning to death, and disease caused for generations due to radiation after the explosion of the A-Bomb. We also have the psychological pain of dealing with permanent physical scars, the mental effects of such a disastrous ordeal, and the loss of family members including the children of survivors. Regardless of the definition of torture, these effects seem to be severe enough that they must match any definition.

One might rejoin that it is difficult to assign who the torturer was in this case: The pilots? The President? The United States as a whole? Furthermore, the pilots certainly had no idea about the effects of the atom bomb and Truman wasn't sure about the exact effects beyond those of the explosion alone. I argue that the decision of this magnitude (it effected not only the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also the whole country of Japan) holds both President and the pilots morally responsible. The President gave the order knowing it was an action carrying a great deal of moral weight and the pilots proceeded with the action of dropping the bomb. Perhaps the lack of knowledge gives both parties some element of moral excuse, but I would argue that they simply have to take responsibility for their action whether it was uninformed or not; part of taking responsibility is accepting the moral result of their action and their action resulted in the violation of the rights of the innocent. 

There are two other conditions present that I think have a great deal of moral implication: the atom bomb is an indiscriminate killer and it intentionally killed a great deal of innocents immediately (and unintentionally over time). The role of intention has always been murky, especially in the case of the Terror Bomber vs. the Strategic Bomber, but if one accepts the intent/foresee distinction then one accepts that intention does moral work. The atom bomb, much like fire bombs, also kills indiscriminately and in a very large radius. I am not sure that one is entitled to argue that Truman had no intention of killing innocents as he was aware of the devastating explosive power of the atom bomb and he dropped both of them on cities full of civilians. This brings up a slippery issue regarding whether one can foresee to the point of intention or whether you literally have to intend the deaths of innocents in order for intent to do any moral work. Either way, it seems to me that the combination of indiscriminate killing and seeming intent (or all-but-certain-foresight?) of civilian deaths would have made dropping the atom bomb an impermissible action even if the bomb had killed everyone immediately and had no lasting effects.