Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Joachim]

In 1945, the decision was made to drop the bomb on the city of Hiroshima. This decision was made because the Japanese were refusing to surrender and threatening an inch-by-inch war for Japan. A chance was given for them to stop it, they rebuffed the offer, Hiroshima was nuked.

Again, an offer was made to Japan to surrender. They again rebuffed the offer. The end result was that another bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. America had more bombs ready to roll but the Japanese finally came to their senses and surrendered sometime around August 12th.

Whether or not you agree with my little synopsis, I think this would make a very good discussion topic. Dropping the bombs on Japan. Was it ethical? Was it moral? Was it justified? Should we have simply chosen the conventional route, or simply used more conventional bombs on Japan (ala Dresden)?

 

[Axioma]

Japan offered surrender. It wasn't unconditional. They basically wanted a guarantee that you wouldn't put their Emperor's head on a pike. The US wanted unconditional surrender. Cue nukes.

 

[quatona]

It was terrorism and extremely unethical. No matter what the Japanese government offered, didn´t offer, refused or didn´t refuse - 99,9% of the civilians killed, injured and robbed of their family members and loved ones were not even involved in the negotiations.

 

[The Nihilist]

Eh, it was no worse than firebombing the Axis cities. More to the point, though, everything about war is always unethical, no matter how necessary it is.

 

[mpok1519]

is terrorism against civillians ethical or moral?

nope.

War itself is very unethical. Theres always an alternative to war, although no one will ever look for one.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I hate the fact that we did it, but I also understand that the belief was that there would many more American casualties had we not done it. We'll never know whether that was the case or not.

 

[Jade Margery]

It was terrorism and extremely unethical. No matter what the Japanese government offered, didn´t offer, refused or didn´t refuse - 99,9% of the civilians killed, injured and robbed of their family members and loved ones were not even involved in the negotiations.

Eeeehhh... I think you're being too general with this. The atmosphere of the time, the implications of a continued war, the nature and psychology of the enemy... there are too many factors to just brush it off and say we were being terrorists.

Start with the fact that we were ALREADY at war with the Japanese... inspired to fight by Pearl Harbor if nothing else (A case where the attackers were obviously organized with the country, unlike the current situation with 9-11 and Iraq. It bugs me when people compare the two. The 9-11 terrorists are/were a small group of radicals attacking during peace time, the kamikaze pilots had concrete ties to their government and were acting in the middle of a war.)

So we're already at war with some folks who by all accounts at the time were being some very evil buggers at the time, what with allying themselves with the Nazis and raping, murdering, and pillaging their way through China (not to mention the kinds of camps and experiments they were putting people through, which make our internment camps look like fluffy daycare time. (I can find sources, please don't make me though. This kind of stuff makes me sick to call myself human.))

Add to that a different system of beliefs, values, and psychology. In general, Japanese soldiers would not surrender or let themselves be taken captive. It was extremely dishonorable in their minds, and every inch we ever took on the islands was covered in blood, theirs and ours. Death was more acceptable than surrender, and suicide an honorable choice, especially if one believed the lies told about what American forces would do to prisoners. Entire villages committed suicide at the encouragement of the armed forces, especially on Okinawa, where in the end the Japanese killed more Japanese than the Americans did. AND you gotta consider that Japan's cities were already being bombed, just with smaller bombs.

This was the situation presented to Truman, who had just been promoted after Roosevelt died in office. Truman didn't even know about the bombs until after he assumed the presidency. Fact is, we only had the two bombs. More were in production, but it would have been quite awhile before they were actually useable. It was all still very experimental--that's why the Fat Man and the Little Boy were different after all. They were unique, no one knew which would work better.

Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was actually the biggest bluff the world has likely ever seen. Given the choice between taking out one city in a grand gesture of superiority or fighting a long, costly war on foot, Truman chose the grand gesture. Bomb one is dropped, does massive damage, offer of surrender is sent and refused. No one had ever seen a weapon that powerful before, and the thought was that the Americans had only one. So we dropped the other one, proving we had more. That was enough. If Japan had continued to fight, those bombs would have been wasted, those lives worth nothing.

The thing is, if we hadn't dropped the bombs, many, many more Japanese civilians would have died, as well as Japanese and American soldiers. It was terrible what happened to those people, but it was better than the alternative. Dropping the bombs was not an act of terrorism. One cannot deny that it would cause fear, but by that description EVERY wartime act is a terrorist act. The intention was not to create terror, but to display our overwhelming military superiority in a fashion that could not be ignored by the Japanese government. Destroying an island would not have been enough. Taking out a military base might have been, but there's no way to be sure. It had to cause enough public outcry to sway the officials into consenting to our terms.

And it did. It worked. It was a gamble, and we won. Woo.

I don't think anyone is proud of what happened. War is an awful, despicable thing. If you're going to do it though, you might as well do it right.

 

[quatona]

Eeeehhh... I think you're being too general with this. The atmosphere of the time, the implications of a continued war, the nature and psychology of the enemy... there are too many factors to just brush it off and say we were being terrorists.

The athmosphere of the time and such are irrelevant for the question whether it was terrorism.

Start with the fact that we were ALREADY at war with the Japanese... inspired to fight by Pearl Harbor if nothing else (A case where the attackers were obviously organized with the country, unlike the current situation with 9-11 and Iraq. It bugs me when people compare the two. The 9-11 terrorists are/were a small group of radicals attacking during peace time, the kamikaze pilots had concrete ties to their government and were acting in the middle of a war.)

I didn´t compare anything. I´m saying that nuking entire cities is terrorism.

So we're already at war with some folks who by all accounts at the time were being some very evil buggers at the time, what with allying themselves with the Nazis and raping, murdering, and pillaging their way through China (not to mention the kinds of camps and experiments they were putting people through, which make our internment camps look like fluffy daycare time. (I can find sources, please don't make me though. This kind of stuff makes me sick to call myself human.))

And those persons who were raping, pillaging and murdering their way through China were the civilian inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Add to that a different system of beliefs, values, and psychology. In general, Japanese soldiers would not surrender or let themselves be taken captive. It was extremely dishonorable in their minds, and every inch we ever took on the islands was covered in blood, theirs and ours. Death was more acceptable than surrender, and suicide an honorable choice, especially if one believed the lies told about what American forces would do to prisoners.

And how does all this help justifying the indiscriminate killing of the civilians in entire cities? Instead of telling me all these things I´d prefer you to tell me how they change anything about the fact that nuking civilians by the tenthousands is terrorism. I don´t get it.
Entire villages committed suicide at the encouragement of the armed forces, especially on Okinawa, where in the end the Japanese killed more Japanese than the Americans did.[/quote]
I don´t seem to understand how that is an excuse. My neighbour beats his children, so I can beat his children, too. How does this make any sense?

AND you gotta consider that Japan's cities were already being bombed, just with smaller bombs.

"Were being bombed" - by whom?
By the Americans? So is your line of reasoning: Once we bomb cities (which I think is terrorism, as well), we can as well nuke them?
Or by someone else? In which case your reasoning seems to be: If others bomb cities this entitles us to nuke these cities.
I have problems following either of these lines of reasoning.
But maybe I just missed your point.

This was the situation presented to Truman, who had just been promoted after Roosevelt died in office. Truman didn't even know about the bombs until after he assumed the presidency. Fact is, we only had the two bombs. More were in production, but it would have been quite awhile before they were actually useable. It was all still very experimental--that's why the Fat Man and the Little Boy were different after all. They were unique, no one knew which would work better.

And this helps justifying what and why?

Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was actually the biggest bluff the world has likely ever seen. Given the choice between taking out one city in a grand gesture of superiority or fighting a long, costly war on foot, Truman chose the grand gesture. Bomb one is dropped, does massive damage, offer of surrender is sent and refused. No one had ever seen a weapon that powerful before, and the thought was that the Americans had only one. So we dropped the other one, proving we had more. That was enough. If Japan had continued to fight, those bombs would have been wasted, those lives worth nothing.

The question whether it was strategically clever or successful is immaterial for the question whether it was terrorism.

The thing is, if we hadn't dropped the bombs, many, many more Japanese civilians would have died, as well as Japanese and American soldiers.

I don´t buy into retrospective hypotheticals.
It´s just wild guessing.

Dropping the bombs was not an act of terrorism. One cannot deny that it would cause fear, but by that description EVERY wartime act is a terrorist act.

Yes, and that´s how I personally see it.
But since the definition of terrorism is stricter (terrifying the civilians by attacking them), this slippery slope doesn´t apply.

The intention was not to create terror, but to display our overwhelming military superiority in a fashion that could not be ignored by the Japanese government.

Well, the creation of terror was willingly and knowingly caused. That´s sufficient.

Destroying an island would not have been enough. Taking out a military base might have been, but there's no way to be sure. It had to cause enough public outcry to sway the officials into consenting to our terms.

Well, now you describe the creation of terror as being the intention.

And it did. It worked. It was a gamble, and we won. Woo.

Note to self: If you win it can´t be terrorism and it can´t be unethical.

I see tenthousands of killed and hundredthousands of harmed civilians - knowingly, planfully and intentionally - and I say: That´s a textbook example of terrorism. Regardless who won.

I don't think anyone is proud of what happened. War is an awful, despicable thing. If you're going to do it though, you might as well do it right.

Terrorism is an awful, despicable thing. If your´re going to do it though, you might as well do it right.

Doing awful, despicable things is acting unethically, in my book. Doing these despicable things "right" makes it even more unethical.

 

[Jade Margery]

*sigh*

Look, I'm not saying that dropping bombs on civilians is a good thing to do.

I'm not even saying that dropping those particular bombs on those particular civilians was good.

I don't think we should have done it... but I also think the Japanese shouldn't have kamikaze'd Pearl Harbor, the British shouldn't have bombed Dresden, the Germans shouldn't have decided that genocide was a splendid idea, the Treaty of Versailles shouldn't have bent the Germans over a barrel for something that wasn't their fault, and I think all of this nonsense could have been avoided if some idiot hadn't assassinated Archduke Ferdinand.

But they did, and we did, and dropping those bombs ended it, at least between the Americans and the Japanese. As for the claim that I am doing retrospective hypotheticals, consider this. Number of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (including cancer deaths after): Apprx 220,000. Number of people killed on Okinawa in four days of fighting: Apprx 300,000. 50,000 of them were American. 150,000 were Okinawan. Okinawa was just one island out of many that would have needed to be taken in order to obtain the same surrender that dropping the bombs forced.

I don't think it was good, I think it was just the best option for ending the war as quickly as possible with the fewest casualties. The lesser of two evils, as one might put it. And you can't deny it worked--we've been at peace with Japan ever since, and we're not controlling or ruling them either. They surrendered, we occupied them for seven years rebuilding the infrastructure and making sure people didn't starve, and then we left. Would that it were so easy with Iraq...

I think the reason I object to your use of the word 'terrorism' is simply that it is such a loaded word these days, it can apply to anybody doing anything bad to anybody else if you just want to make an already heinous thing feel additionally politically charged. It's the popular word at the moment, used to condemn everything despite the complexity of the situation behind it. Motives are important, and the motive behind the atom bomb attacks was not one of malicious fear-inducement, but of desperation and the desire to end the conflict once and for all.

By your definition, again, every war act ever is an act of terrorism, so I can't convince you that this one wasn't. I just object to history being whitewashed with a couple modern phrases and moral grandstanding.

 

[Penumbra]

In 1945, the decision was made to drop the bomb on the city of Hiroshima. This decision was made because the Japanese were refusing to surrender and threatening an inch-by-inch war for Japan. A chance was given for them to stop it, they rebuffed the offer, Hiroshima was nuked.

Again, an offer was made to Japan to surrender. They again rebuffed the offer. The end result was that another bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. America had more bombs ready to roll but the Japanese finally came to their senses and surrendered sometime around August 12th.

Whether or not you agree with my little synopsis, I think this would make a very good discussion topic. Dropping the bombs on Japan. Was it ethical? Was it moral? Was it justified? Should we have simply chosen the conventional route, or simply used more conventional bombs on Japan (ala Dresden)?

Are you sure that the US had more bombs to drop? I think I remember learning that the US made three of them, and one had to be used as a test, so only two were available for war. How quickly did they make more? If we had a large amount of them, then I'd agree with what Jon Stuart mentioned on his Daily Show and say that we should have dropped one right off the coast of a major city, and then if they don't surrender, drop a few more off of the coasts, and hopefully they'd get the point. But, if I'm not mistaken, we only had 2 bombs available for war at the time, so wasting them was not much of an option. Does anyone have any info on this, on how many bombs we really had? Because I think that plays a factor....

Aside from that, I offer two points of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_2

The first is that, assuming wikipedia is correct, Japan had far fewer civilian deaths than Germany, but nobody mentions the deaths of German civilians. We only focus on the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because they were big and flashy single decisions, instead of drawn out over a long period of time. So, while hundreds of thousands of people certainly died there, I dare say that it may be blown out of proportion compared to the staggering total amount of civilian deaths on both the axis and allied side, as sad as that may sound.

My second point is that, again assuming wikipedia is correct, the US had fewer military deaths than Japanese had civilian deaths. For every US military death, there were many Japanese military deaths. But, even as far as Japanese civilians go, more of them died than the US lost military troops. This seems unacceptable to me, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted a large percentage of those Japanese civilian deaths.


While I don't think Truman or his offers is a terrorist or a war criminal, I really don't think I could have ever done something like what he did. Maybe I'm idealic, but I would think we could have found another way... It was said that the Japanese were willing to fight inch by inch for Japan, but I think it's hard to say how many civilians really would have died under such circumstances.

 

[Nathan45]

If you're going to fight a war, the bomb-them-till-they-surrender strategy seems like a fine way to go about it.

 

[R3quiem]

For those of you who are against the bombing, what do you propose should have been done as an alternative?

Whether something is ethical or moral or not is hardly important if it is the best available method to deal with a problem and causes the least suffering. We don't live in a perfect world, so usually the choice comes down to which action is least imperfect.

 

[R3quiem]

In 1945, the decision was made to drop the bomb on the city of Hiroshima. This decision was made because the Japanese were refusing to surrender and threatening an inch-by-inch war for Japan. A chance was given for them to stop it, they rebuffed the offer, Hiroshima was nuked.

Again, an offer was made to Japan to surrender. They again rebuffed the offer. The end result was that another bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. America had more bombs ready to roll but the Japanese finally came to their senses and surrendered sometime around August 12th.

Japan offered surrender. It wasn't unconditional. They basically wanted a guarantee that you wouldn't put their Emperor's head on a pike. The US wanted unconditional surrender. Cue nukes.

Which one is true? This makes a big difference.

If Japan offered conditional surrender before the bombs were dropped, what conditions did they want?

 

[Penumbra]

The entire war in the pacific, from when the U.S. entered the war, was pretty much a losing one for the Japanese wasn't it? Of course they put up a huge fight, but once the U.S. started taking their islands, it's not like Japan started regaining them and taking them back as far as I know. The entire war was a minimization of their empire once they struck Pearl Harbor....

If that is true, when we finally had them pretty much beaten all the way back, couldn't we have just blockaded them? Halt trade?

 

[Verv]

Jade Margery is right and Quotana is wrong.

The entire war in the pacific, from when the U.S. entered the war, was pretty much a losing one for the Japanese wasn't it? Of course they put up a huge fight, but once the U.S. started taking their islands, it's not like Japan started regaining them and taking them back as far as I know. The entire war was a minimization of their empire once they struck Pearl Harbor....

If that is true, when we finally had them pretty much beaten all the way back, couldn't we have just blockaded them? Halt trade?

But what about Korea? What about other areas of land where the Japanese were still present and exerting control?

Embargoes do not work -- look at how great our embargo was against Hussein. It became a tool to simply destroy the local populace and keep the people on top richer.

 

[quatona]

*sigh*

Sorry to ask so much from your patience.

Look, I'm not saying that dropping bombs on civilians is a good thing to do.

I'm not even saying that dropping those particular bombs on those particular civilians was good.

Ok. So what are you saying?
I understood you were saying "no, it wasn´t terrorism", but immediately you started an - though interesting - description of history all of which was completely irrelevant for the question.

I have given you the definition "terrorism" I am working from. You haven´t given yours. Your objections aren´t objections to "it´s terrorism (quatona-definition)" - in fact they don´t even have anything to do with the criteria. Maybe they are valid objections to "it´s terrorism (Jade-definition), but in order to find out I would have to know your definition.

I don't think we should have done it... but I also think the Japanese shouldn't have kamikaze'd Pearl Harbor, the British shouldn't have bombed Dresden, the Germans shouldn't have decided that genocide was a splendid idea, the Treaty of Versailles shouldn't have bent the Germans over a barrel for something that wasn't their fault, and I think all of this nonsense could have been avoided if some idiot hadn't assassinated Archduke Ferdinand.

Sorry, Jade, but I feel you are losing focus again. I really don´t know how pointing to all these things could possibly help answering the question "was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism?"

But they did, and we did, and dropping those bombs ended it, at least between the Americans and the Japanese. As for the claim that I am doing retrospective hypotheticals, consider this. Number of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (including cancer deaths after): Apprx 220,000. Number of people killed on Okinawa in four days of fighting: Apprx 300,000. 50,000 of them were American. 150,000 were Okinawan. Okinawa was just one island out of many that would have needed to be taken in order to obtain the same surrender that dropping the bombs forced.

No, I am not going to consider how many civilians would "have to be" killed in order to achieve the same task. Indiscriminate mass-killing of civilians is terrorism, whether in Nagasaki or in Okinawa or whatever other island.

I don't think it was good, I think it was just the best option for ending the war as quickly as possible with the fewest casualties.

To be precise: you mean "the best option for winning the war as quickly as possible with the fewest casualties", correct?
Be that as it may (I´m far from being a warstrategist or even interested in becoming one, so let´s simply assume you are right here) - how is that an objection to "it was terrorism"?

The lesser of two evils, as one might put it.

And if something is the lesser of two evils it ceases to be terrorism? I think it would really help the discussion if you provided the definition of
"terrorism" you are working from.

And you can't deny it worked--we've been at peace with Japan ever since, and we're not controlling or ruling them either. They surrendered, we occupied them for seven years rebuilding the infrastructure and making sure people didn't starve, and then we left.

So you seem to be saying that if something has the effect the acting party pursues it can´t be terrorism. Else I wouldn´t know how all this is an objection to my statement.

I think the reason I object to your use of the word 'terrorism' is simply that it is such a loaded word these days, it can apply to anybody doing anything bad to anybody else if you just want to make an already heinous thing feel additionally politically charged. It's the popular word at the moment, used to condemn everything despite the complexity of the situation behind it.

I have given you my definition, thus the fact that others use it for it´s emotional load is not my problem and irrelevant for the discussion between you and me. I have done my part in avoiding a loaded use of the term (I gave a clear definition), you haven´t, but instead you start talking about how others use it.
The best method against unprecise or loaded use of words is to use them precisely and without load. That´s what I am trying to do.

Motives are important, and the motive behind the atom bomb attacks was not one of malicious fear-inducement, but of desperation and the desire to end the conflict once and for all.

These two motives aren´t mutually exclusive. The decision that fear-inducement was the preferrable means was born of desperation and the desire to win the conflict. Doesn´t mean that it wasn´t fear-inducement or that it wasn´t intended.
The means was terrorism, and it was also the strategical intention. Whether you or I feel that terrrorism is a justifiable means in certain circumstances is a different question.

By your definition, again, every war act ever is an act of terrorism, so I can't convince you that this one wasn't.

No, that´s incorrect paraphrasing of my position in this discussion. It is true that I find the distinction "war vs. terrorism" ethically irrelevant, however the definition I gave and applied does allow for a clear objective distinction between the two.

I just object to history being whitewashed with a couple modern phrases and moral grandstanding.

So do I.

 

[mpok1519]

alternative?

say....

Why don't we make money from this war without people dying? dieing? die'en.....

Alternatives?

nuke uninhabited land outside of japan.

suppress retaliation with troops.

nuke more uninhabited land.

contiue leaflittering warnings.

Nuke some more uninhabited land.

Repeat.

Until their fish supply dies from radiation.

jk.

hopefully it wouldnt come to that.

animal and plant life are the real victoms of war.

End enviornmental injustice.

i spelled environement wrong didnt i?

 

[quatona]

Jade Margery is right and Quotana is wrong.

Almost missed this one.

Quotana is wrong.

Yeah, it´s wrong. It´s quatona.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Sorry to ask so much from your patience.


Ok. So what are you saying?
I understood you were saying "no, it wasn´t terrorism", but immediately you started an - though interesting - description of history all of which was completely irrelevant for the question.

I have given you the definition "terrorism" I am working from. You haven´t given yours. Your objections aren´t objections to "it´s terrorism (quatona-definition)" - in fact they don´t even have anything to do with the criteria. Maybe they are valid objections to "it´s terrorism (Jade-definition), but in order to find out I would have to know your definition.


Sorry, Jade, but I feel you are losing focus again. I really don´t know how pointing to all these things could possibly help answering the question "was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorism?"


No, I am not going to consider how many civilians would "have to be" killed in order to achieve the same task. Indiscriminate mass-killing of civilians is terrorism, whether in Nagasaki or in Okinawa or whatever other island.


To be precise: you mean "the best option for winning the war as quickly as possible with the fewest casualties", correct?
Be that as it may (I´m far from being a warstrategist or even interested in becoming one, so let´s simply assume you are right here) - how is that an objection to "it was terrorism"?

And if something is the lesser of two evils it ceases to be terrorism? I think it would really help the discussion if you provided the definition of
"terrorism" you are working from.


So you seem to be saying that if something has the effect the acting party pursues it can´t be terrorism. Else I wouldn´t know how all this is an objection to my statement.




I have given you my definition, thus the fact that others use it for it´s emotional load is not my problem and irrelevant for the discussion between you and me. I have done my part in avoiding a loaded use of the term (I gave a clear definition), you haven´t, but instead you start talking about how others use it.
The best method against unprecise or loaded use of words is to use them precisely and without load. That´s what I am trying to do.



These two motives aren´t mutually exclusive. The decision that fear-inducement was the preferrable means was born of desperation and the desire to win the conflict. Doesn´t mean that it wasn´t fear-inducement or that it wasn´t intended.
The means was terrorism, and it was also the strategical intention. Whether you or I feel that terrrorism is a justifiable means in certain circumstances is a different question.



No, that´s incorrect paraphrasing of my position in this discussion. It is true that I find the distinction "war vs. terrorism" ethically irrelevant, however the definition I gave and applied does allow for a clear objective distinction between the two.

So do I.

I think the issue is that actions taken by one nation against another, when their purpose is not to just hurt civilians or such, but whose purpose is to work towards ending a war, when it is reasonably considered to be a good way to complete the objectives of that war, is exempt from being terrorism. Otherwise, most, if not all, warfare it terrorism.

Nuking the two cities was no worse than the fire bombing we did of other cities, which often times resulted in more deaths in that city. Why should the fact that it was 1 bomb instead of 100 change it from a war action to terrorism?

 

[quatona]

I think the issue is that actions taken by one nation against another, when their purpose is not to just hurt civilians or such, but whose purpose is to work towards ending a war, when it is reasonably considered to be a good way to complete the objectives of that war, is exempt from being terrorism. Otherwise, most, if not all, warfare it terrorism.

I may be mistaken, but last time I checked ending the war by means of winning it is the very purpose of every participant in every war.
Thus, unless it is performed just for the heck of it and a purpose in itself there is no such thing as terrorism, according to your definition.
And, yessure, every warfare act that indiscriminately targets civilians for the purpose of weakening the morale is terrorism.

Nuking the two cities was no worse than the fire bombing we did of other cities, which often times resulted in more deaths in that city.

The operational term in my statement in discussion was not "good, bad, worse...", but terrorism, along with the definition I am referring to.

Why should the fact that it was 1 bomb instead of 100 change it from a war action to terrorism?

It doens´t. Indiscrimately killing civilians by throwing 100 bombs on a town is terrorism, as well.

But, hey, if you don´t want it to be called terrorism, just come up with a different definition. E.g. you could posit that in cases where a war is declared, every action ordered and performed by the government and its troops is "war" and not "terrorism", by virtue of the agreement of being at war with each other.
Why do I have to do all the work?