Hiroshima

[Deadbolt]

This came up in another thread in the politics section, I wanted to hear more views on it...
As is widely known, WWII was brought to a close with the dropping of an atomic bomb on not one but two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
many civilians died instantly, more died later from illness or burns.
Now, I hold the view that this action was the most base, despicable and morally evil act ever committed by the government of the United States. there is no way to aim an atomic bomb at a military target if you're dropping it on a city. Civilians are going to die. Women, children, elderly. These people, who you will note didn't have a vote, so they had no say in the actions of their government, they are the innocent victims of what I find to be a singularly base atrocity.
Now, some have tried to justify it by saying that it saved the life of many US servicemen. This may very be. But the way I see it, the men who would have died in an invasion were Soldiers. To be blunt, it's their job. To risk their lives fighting for their country. The overwhelming majority of casualties were in fact civilians. It was a city after all. In what stretch of the imagination are the lives of soldiers to be considered above those of innocent civilians? How could any person rationalize that?!
Yet, many people I've talked to do just that, a shocking percentage of them come from the Christian Right.
Now tell me what you think.

 

[Voegelin]

FDR put Japanese Americans in concentration camps and Truman dropped atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. Just shows what liberal Democratic Presidents are capable of I guess.

 

[quatona]

Discussing war ethics means to help veiling the fact that it is a contradiction in terms. JMHO

That said, I have always wondered why those people who are so quick to identify and locate "evil", apparently do not have Hiroshima/Nagasaki on their list.

History is written by the winners.

As for the Christian Right: Don´t know if they (many of them, that is) are really justifying it, but it surely would not surprise me. It does not at all appear out of character in view of the general approach to ethics that many of them have.

 

[Bombila]

I don't think the American Christian Right is alone in supporting that action - I've seen it defended elsewhere by many people who otherwise might be labelled 'liberal', 'libertarian', 'atheist', and so on. Most military and ex-military people I've spoken with defend it - but I have suspected that defense to sometimes be a nagging fear of what they might have had to do, or might be told to do, and how that might look ethically later on. No one likes to think they might be called evil.

A lot of intelligent and historically informed people have stated that it was not necessary in terms of ending Japan's participation in the war, and I personally think they are right.

I suspect that during WWII, there was an enormous component of racism against the Japanese people, fueled by the war and by atrocities committed by the Japanese military themselves. I suspect proponents of dropping atom bombs at the time may not have felt Japanese people were even fully human. I also suspect that those responsible for making the decision did not fully comprehend the enormity of the action, what the science really predicted would happen.

 

[RaveyDavey]

Forget about the 'nuclear' word... have you considered how many people died from normal bombs in the war?

As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945

Fire bombing of Tokyo: The death toll was at least 80,000, and perhaps exceeded 100,000

Dresdon bombing: historians now view around 25,000–35,000 as the likely range

What was key in the decision making for civilian bombing was the try and sap the will of the population in support of the war. The london blitz backfired in making us more obstinate, but clearly the two bombs in japan had the required effect.

You must also consider that infact it wasn't just the US sooldiers that would be saved but the japanese too, and consider that the Japanese were preparing to arm and train EVERY citizen in the defense of their homeland:

The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for American casualties[1] and the tens of millions for Japanese casualties.

From here

 

[trunks2k]

I look at it like this, conventional bombings and fire bombings both in Europe and Japan by the allies killed upwards of tens of thousands of innocent civilians at a shot (i.e. Dresden). Is killing over 10,000 people any less morally repugnant than killing 100,000? Where do we draw that line? Why do people not seem to mind something like Dresden, but argue over the morality of Hiroshima?

 

[jayem]

The vast majority of all the WWII casualties were civilians. And far more so in Europe than Japan. War is hell. The use of the atomic bomb was absolutely justified, given what was known at the time. True, Japan was close to being militarily spent. IIRC, some members of the war cabinet had gotten peace feelers transmitted to the Americans. But they wanted all sorts of unacceptable conditions, and the prevailing sentiment of the Japanese war council was to fight on. A case could be made that the Nagasaki bomb might not have been needed if the Japanese were given time to fully digest what they were up against. I don't buy the racial angle. I have no doubt that atomic weapons would also have been used on Germany, if the Nazi's hadn't collapsed when they did. Remember, at Yalta, the Allies' demand to the Axis was clear--unconditional surrender. No other option. IMO, given the information we had about our enemies, we were perfectly right to do whatever it took to achieve it.

P.S.: (In Merle Miller's book, Plain Speaking, Harry Truman said he never lost sleep over using the bomb. And it's confirmed in the David McCullough biography, Truman.)

 

[Bombila]

I look at it like this, conventional bombings and fire bombings both in Europe and Japan by the allies killed upwards of tens of thousands of innocent civilians at a shot (i.e. Dresden). Is killing over 10,000 people any less morally repugnant than killing 100,000? Where do we draw that line? Why do people not seem to mind something like Dresden, but argue over the morality of Hiroshima?

In my experience, the same people who argue the morality of Hiroshima also argue the morality of the firebombing of Dresden, and the Blitz, and all other outright attacks on civilians, regardless of who carried them out.

 

[RaveyDavey]

One of the key differences that separates 'normal' weapons from weapons that are branded as 'unethical' and banned under the Geneva convention is the ability to guarantee death.

An atomic bomb has a significant portion of its blast radius achieving 100% fatalities, the same can be said of biological and chemical weapons too. However traditional HE and Frag explosives cannot guarantee 100% death and especially with multiple smaller bombs a significant portion of people will survive at the impact site (I am sure many of you have heard/read about lucky people who have survived explosions at close range)

There is also the residual effects of a nuclear/chemical/biological bomb too that makes it a lot different from conventional explosives...

 

[WatersMoon110]

I think that the use of the bombs might have been justified, but weren't actually necessary.

From my understanding, the Japanese were already surrendering but they were working out terms with the US. In Japan, there is a phrase used in business arrangements that directly translates as a "no deal" but actually is used in Japan to mean "I don't like your terms, what is your next offer" or something similar.

Because the US didn't have any native Japanese speakers to translate (put them all in holding camps), this nuance of Japanese business deals was unknown. So there was no need to drop any bombs to make them surrender.

 

[Phred]

Now tell me what you think.

Dropping the bombs was the right thing to do.

Yes, civilians were killed. These same civilians were being trained to defend the homeland against an American invasion. Caves on the islands were stocked with weapons. Men, women and children were being taught to fight with pitchforks, pointy sticks, knives and guns if they could get them. All in defense of an almost mystical homeland and a divine Emperor. So... while they weren't combatants yet, they would have been in an invasion.

On the other side we have just under a million troops... weary from fighting fanatical Japanese resistance throughout the Pacific and angry from what they discovered when they liberated the prison camps. You're going to send these men into the homeland of the enemy to be met on the beaches by children with pitchforks. Just to show you how violent the defense department thought this would be they had nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals prepared in anticipation of the casualties in the invasion of Japan. We're still handing out those medals today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Medals that didn't need to be used because we dropped the A-bombs.

It's estimated that the U.S. alone would have suffered 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities during an invasion and occupation of Japan. That's not counting casualties and deaths suffered by the Japanese which undoubtedly would have been higher. So even if the Atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki took 200,000 lives it was far, far less than would have been experienced had the U.S. invaded. Far less.

 

[Sphere]

Japan was in no position to surrender. And the government was actively training it's civilian population(women and children included) to defend against an upcoming Invasion to the bitter end.

The plans for a full scale invasion were in the works, the US was expecting well over 1 million casualties. Cute little fact here, up to 500,000 purple hearts were manufactured shortly before the planned invasion of Japan--in preparation for all the casualties we were going to sustain. To this day, we have used that stockpile to award injured soldiers in every conflict SINCE wwii(korean war, vietnam, gulf war, iraq) and have still not depleted the stockpile.

In any case, estimates suggested that roughly 1/3 of the Japanese population was going to die in an invasion(this is roughly 20 million people). The atomic bombs forced them to surrender, before such an invasion was needed. TENS of millions of lives were spared in combination, on both sides--thanks to the bomb. They weren't just necessary to bring the war to an end--they were merciful and spared Japan complete annihilation.

 

[m9lc]

War is a really tough thing for me to understand morally. Killing one another is such a despicable thing to do, yet somehow countries still manage to get the masses to do it. I have to agree with quatona on this one.

To the OP: I've always disagreed with the notion that somehow a civilian death is worse than a soldier death. I fail to see why some pencil-pusher in the Twin Towers is more valuable of a life than a 19-year-old who's trying to pay for his college education.

 

[Deadbolt]

War is a really tough thing for me to understand morally. Killing one another is such a despicable thing to do, yet somehow countries still manage to get the masses to do it. I have to agree with quatona on this one.

To the OP: I've always disagreed with the notion that somehow a civilian death is worse than a soldier death. I fail to see why some pencil-pusher in the Twin Towers is more valuable of a life than a 19-year-old who's trying to pay for his college education.

I think you've probably got it about right. the various posts I've seen raise a lot of interesting questions, Though I'm going to have to stick by my original assertion. I would never drop a nuke on anyone were it up to me.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Some people say that dropping the bomb was for the greater good, but if that is the case, how much death and suffering would there need to be to cross the line? That was two cities, but what if the bomb could go no smaller than the whole country? It would certainly end the war and at no cost to American lives.

As technology progresses, it may not be unthinkable for it to be the case that one button annihilates a country.

So... how much?

 

[Bombila]

War is a really tough thing for me to understand morally. Killing one another is such a despicable thing to do, yet somehow countries still manage to get the masses to do it. I have to agree with quatona on this one.

To the OP: I've always disagreed with the notion that somehow a civilian death is worse than a soldier death. I fail to see why some pencil-pusher in the Twin Towers is more valuable of a life than a 19-year-old who's trying to pay for his college education.

I (I'm not the OP) don't disagree entirely - I don't think anyone should have to die in a war, and I don't think the pencil pusher's life has more value than the soldier's life. However, whether to obtain an education or for other reasons, the soldier has the expectation of possibly placing her/himself in harm's way, and is trained and equipped appropriately, and is normally with a group of other soldiers. Civilians are normally not trained or armed or equipped for combat, are often responsible for even more vulnerable citizens, babies and children and elders and others. This is why we often are more incensed at the killing of civilians - we perceive it as 'not a fair fight'.

 

[Merlin]

War is ugly.
People die.

 

[quatona]

War is ugly.
People die.

It´s not like people simply die, but more like people kill other people. That is what´s ugly about it. What makes it even uglier is that people kill other people whom they don´t even know, and whom they might actually be best friends with if not the countries they live in happened to have a political conflict and the governments had decided to send their people out to slaughter each other (and the people, for whatever reason, found that a good idea and complied with this order).
That is the reality of war, and not "people die".

I find it hilarious when those people of all who usually keep pointing out how everyone "chooses to...", "has freewill" and is "responsible for their actions" and how those who do this and that "choose to do evil", shoulder-shruggingly reduce the ugliness of war to with a "War is ugly.People die" - as though there were no acting and choosing persons involved in these deaths.

 

[Merlin]

It´s not like people simply die, but more like people kill other people. That is what´s ugly about it. What makes it even uglier is that people kill other people whom they don´t even know, and whom they might actually be best friends with if not the countries they live in happened to have a political conflict and the governments had decided to send their people out to slaughter each other (and the people, for whatever reason, found that a good idea and complied with this order).
That is the reality of war, and not "people die".

I find it hilarious when those people of all who usually keep pointing out how everyone "chooses to...", "has freewill" and is "responsible for their actions" and how those who do this and that "choose to do evil", shoulder-shruggingly reduce the ugliness of war to with a "War is ugly.People die" - as though there were no acting and choosing persons involved in these deaths.

To me,
It's just as ugly when there is killing which is not of war.

 

[Polycarp1]

Phred and Criminology have the right of it. Unfortunately. I dislike that civilians get killed in war. By anyone, under any circumstance.

But the diehard war party in Japan was in fact holding out for defending against an invasion... and the statistics that Criminology cites are, if anything, conservative -- the accounts of the two invasion operations actually estimated casualty figures of which those are the lowball, minimum-casualty estimates.

Japan was offering to end the war, through Russia -- on its own terms, which included hanging on to a lot of its conquests, etc. But surrender? The leadership was divided, and before Hiroshima, only a minority was facing facts and realizing the war was effectively lost.

Might it have ended without the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs? We don't have the answers to "what if" -- but best evidence of what was going on among the Japanese leadership was that they turned enough people to the realization that Japan was a dead duck that Hirohito was able to use his prestige to call for the surrender and make it stick.

And Truman had to make the call with what was known to him and his advisors at the time.

So all in all, horrific as they were, the two atomic bombs may actually have been the solution that minimized the number of deaths, in the long run.