Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was it right?

[Totenkopf]

No, I didn't miss the point. The same question could be asked about any type of weapon used to kill someone. The reverse question could be asked. Is it moral not to use a sufficient amount of force to end something that is resulting in increasing and uncesaing numbers of deaths? Was dropping an atomic bomb really any less moral than firebombing Tokyo? Starving millions into submission as an alternate measure to end the war? We blanch at the idea of using nukes in this day and age, not least b/c we no longer are in sole possession of them, rendering any use as sure to result in similiar retaliation.

[Inyri]

Well your whole argument seems based on "well we had to save the lives, so it was the most efficient course of action" without addressing the ethical side of it at all. No one's arguing that using the nukes didn't end the war faster and save countless American lives. That's basically a given.

[Totenkopf]

Moral decisions aren't made in a vacuum. All that other stuff comes into play when making an informed decision about what course of action to take. I think most of us recognize that war is not desirable, or even particularly moral. Also, by extension, it saved countless Japanese lives, so don't forget the other side of the ledger.

[Inyri]

I haven't forgotten anything.

 

I'm simply not letting rationalizations cloud my judgment on this matter.

[Ray Jones]

Frankly, Ray, mimartin and others are right that you're only looking at one side of the equation.

No, I don't. All I say is you can *not* excuse or justify the use of an a-bomb just because it made Japan surrender a bit earlier.

 

Nobody is saying that a nuke is less deadly than a conventional bomb

"Everybody" is saying that the bombs caused less death and suffering than a ongoing war had caused, which is plain wrong when we look at death tolls of past conventional wars compared to these two bombs.

 

just that the use of two pitifully underpowered ones (by modern standards) was the direct cause for the Japanese surrendering and not dragging out an already lost cause.

Already lost cause is the keyword here. Conventional methods would have been sufficient to win over Japan.

 

I'd say you ought to at least look at the above link and reconsider your argument.

I looked at the link, but there is nothing to reconsider. The topic is "was it right", leaning towards "was it necessary". Past estimates of those who wanted to demonstrate their power do not really answer these questions.

[mimartin]

Good point Inyri. Can something be the right decision, but the morally wrong thing to do? I already conceded my point of view that the use of Nuclear Weapons was morally wrong. Yet, in Truman’s place I would have done the exact same thing with the same information that he had at his disposal at the time. Saying that Truman and the United States made the immoral decision based on information we now have, but was unavailable in 1945 is frankly unfair to their place in history. Judging him and America based on the facts of that day and the recent history of what each American had been through in that period may be more appropriate.

 

We don’t know if dropping the bombs saved lives or destroyed more lives. We don’t know what would have happen in the invasion so there is no way to project estimates. Using data from outside this era either before or after are also unfair due to the difference in the effectiveness of weapons and medical care. Personally I would look at Okinawa to get a better understanding of what the fighting would have been like in an actual landing on the Japanese mainland (which was a huge source for the projections Truman was shown).

[Totenkopf]

I haven't forgotten anything.

 

I'm simply not letting rationalizations cloud my judgment on this matter.

 

 

Perhaps more likely rationalizations of a different type.

 

Frankly, Ray, mimartin and others are right that you're only looking at one side of the equation.

 

No, I don't. All I say is you can *not* excuse or justify the use of an a-bomb just because it made Japan surrender a bit earlier.

 

Nobody is saying that a nuke is less deadly than a conventional bomb

 

"Everybody" is saying that the bombs caused less death and suffering than a ongoing war had caused, which is plain wrong when we look at death tolls of past conventional wars compared to these two bombs.

 

just that the use of two pitifully underpowered ones (by modern standards) was the direct cause for the Japanese surrendering and not dragging out an already lost cause.

 

Already lost cause is the keyword here. Conventional methods would have been sufficient to win over Japan.

 

 

I'd say you ought to at least look at the above link and reconsider your argument.

 

I looked at the link, but there is nothing to reconsider. The topic is "was it right", leaning towards "was it necessary". Past estimates of those who wanted to demonstrate their power do not really answer these questions.

 

Just keep in mind, Ray, that conventional weapons of all types were responsible for ~98+% of the 50+ million that perished in WW2. However, it's obvious from your last statement that you believe that the atom bombs were only dropped to scare the Russians. It's obvious to anyone NOT in denial that conventional methods would have only led to more deaths. To understand the state of the Japanese fighting man's mind, you need only look at some of the jihadists today. Suicide in the name of your God/god was considered an honorable end. Besides, saying "x" wouldn't have happened b/c we did "y" ignores the realities of why "y" was chosen in the first place. The only way in which it would have been truly immoral to use the atom bomb in the end stages of the war would have been had we decided we were going to exterminate Japan once and for all, w/no chance offered for surrender of any type.

[Inyri]

I suppose you think murder is perfectly acceptable and justified, so long as the person you kill is a violent offender? Because that's basically what you're saying: it's okay to nuke the heck out of people just as long as it saves lives. Should we nuke the entire middle east as well, to save American lives? Cuz Lord knows if we don't blow them to smithereens this war will go on longer! DROP THE BOMBS!

 

[Totenkopf]

If you're going to be that hysterical, what's the point taking this any further?

[Inyri]

Who's hysterical? Did you mean sarcastic?

 

In any case, you didn't address my point.

[Darth InSidious]

Like it or not, it is a fact that dropping two atomic bombs ended the war.

I'll have to disagree with that.

 

A historical fact is that Elizabeth I died in 1603.

 

An interpretation is that there was a military revolution in central Europe between 1499 and 1560.

 

Your comment seems to fall into the latter category.

[Lance Monance]

Well your whole argument seems based on "well we had to save the lives, so it was the most efficient course of action" without addressing the ethical side of it at all. No one's arguing that using the nukes didn't end the war faster and save countless American lives. That's basically a given.

 

I'm curious how you determine whether a certain course of action is ethical in a war when you disregard "saving lives".

 

How is talking about live loss not addressing the ethical side of it?

[mimartin]

What are the ethical ramifications of a nation’s leader being more concern with the loss of life of the enemy than the lives of the soldiers under his command?

[Inyri]

I don't disregard savings lives, I simply don't regard it as the epitome of what is ethical and what is not. Also saying "it's ethical because it saves lives" is not a valid argument, especially when you don't address why.

 

The point is we wouldn't say it's ethical to, for instance, nuke Iraq just to save American soldiers. It's an unethical decision, but not doing it costs lives. So as you can see, things aren't quite as cut and dry as you might like to suggest.

 

In the end I don't think the 'lives saved' by bombing Japan makes the action any more ethical; we traded American soldiers for Japanese civilians. I'd call that dirty tactics, personally.

[mimartin]

we traded American soldiers for Japanese civilians. I'd call that dirty tactics, personally.

I'd call it war.

[Achilles]

I'd call it war.

Yes, I do agree that some percentage of accidental civilian deaths (aka "collateral damage") is to be expected due to its unavoidable nature. However, I think there is a huge difference between accidentally killing some civilians while intentionally trying to destroy a military target and knowingly targeting a civilian city. The latter is more commonly known as "an act of terrorism".

[Marius Fett]

The latter is more commonly known as "an act of terrorism".

 

QFE.

[Darth Xander]

No it wasn't right! Nucleur Warfare never right !

[Ray Jones]

Just keep in mind, Ray, that conventional weapons of all types were responsible for ~98+% of the 50+ million that perished in WW2.

No. Responsible were those in charge who incited the conflicts. Also, of the 70 million people who found death in WWII, about 20 million died due to disease and hunger. That's roughly 30%. 4 million died in captivity, that's another 6%. Then we have another 1% at least, who died from chemical and biological weapons. Plus 2.5 million killed in German death camps, that's like 3%. Don't know how you make 98+% of the remaining 60%.

 

However, it's obvious from your last statement that you believe that the atom bombs were only dropped to scare the Russians.

Is it? It isn't. I said to demonstrate power, not scare the Russians. No. The bombs were dropped for two reasons. to show to the rest of the world who's got the biggest, and as revenge for Pearl Harbor.

 

conventional methods would have only led to more deaths.

Prove it. I think I showed that this would've needed at least another year of war, and even if 50000 or hundred thousand more soldiers had to die, to drop nuclear weapons over a city full of civilians instead beats it by a multitude of lengths.

 

The only way in which it would have been truly immoral to use the atom bomb in the end stages of the war would have been had we decided we were going to exterminate Japan once and for all, w/no chance offered for surrender of any type.

So it's just untruly immoral? That makes a difference how?

[mimartin]

Yes, I do agree that some percentage of accidental civilian deaths (aka "collateral damage") is to be expected due to its unavoidable nature. However, I think there is a huge difference between accidentally killing some civilians while intentionally trying to destroy a military target and knowingly targeting a civilian city. The latter is more commonly known as "an act of terrorism".

I have no problem with that assertion, after all the bombings were also a form of extortion. We were wanted the unconditional surrender and we used the bombs and the threat of more bombs to pressure Japan into surrendering. Not that it makes it moral or right, but we should not forget that neither side went out of their way to protect the enemies’ civilian population during WWII.

The bombs were dropped for two reasons. to show to the rest of the world who's got the biggest, and as revenge for Pearl Harbor.

The only fault I see here is there should be a third reason ( and possibly a forth reason), to get the unconditional surrender of Japan without sacrificing anymore American lives. No one, but Truman could say which was the deciding factor. Sure some within the government wanted to show up Stalin, others wanted to just to prove it could be done, some wanted revenge and others wanted what remained of greatest generation to come home alive and in one piece. It was going to be extremely difficult to take those that had sacrificed so much in freeing Europe to the other side of the world to invade Japan. Only Truman could say for sure, according to his speech revenge and bring Americans home was the factors he considered important.

[Web Rider]

The point is we wouldn't say it's ethical to, for instance, nuke Iraq just to save American soldiers. It's an unethical decision, but not doing it costs lives. So as you can see, things aren't quite as cut and dry as you might like to suggest.

 

In the end I don't think the 'lives saved' by bombing Japan makes the action any more ethical; we traded American soldiers for Japanese civilians. I'd call that dirty tactics, personally.

 

I'd call it "context". Since the situation in WWII with Japan is not even close to the situation in Iraq today.

[Marius Fett]

Still think it was right?

 

Whatch

.

 

Sure it's only a cartoon, but it's VERY close to what the real thing would have been like.

 

WARNING:

 

DO NOT WATCH IT IF YOU HAVE A WEAK STOMACH.

[Rev7]

^

I think that it just depicts what might have happened. I have watched documentaries saying that you would literally just be vaporized. Whether or not that is what the video was trying to show, I really don't know. But it did somewhat change my view because it showed the people. And in their point of view, not from ours. That really can change your view...

[Marius Fett]

That's what the video is meant to do.

 

It shows children being ripped apart where they stand, their eyes melting and bodies breaking apart.

 

Not pleasant.

[Rev7]

I definately know that that was the point of the movie. I think that it must have been horrible to be subjected to something like that. Little did we know of the effects of nuclear weapons...