Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified?
anglagard
Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 1 of 140 (623111)
07-08-2011 3:27 AM


In the thread - War and Morality. Al Queda vs. USA there was a disagreement between Dronestar and I concerning the use of atomic bombs by the USA against Japan, ostensibly in order to hasten the end of the war and to reduce allied casualties.
In Message 162 Dronestar presented five assertions which I believe are worthy of further discussion.
quote:
1. america intercepted messages from Japan to Russia indicating JAPAN WANTED to SURRENDER.
2. Japan had already considered surrendering if america would just allow Japan's Emperor to keep his seat on the throne. america said no, but AFTER bombing Negasaki and Hiroshima, america gave into Japan's request.
3. america knew japan would surrender unconditionally when Japan found out that Russia would join the fight. So, america hastened the two bombings BEFORE Japan COULD surrender for an american show of power toward Russia.
4. if ANY regards towards human life was any factor at all, america could have detonated the first bomb over water as a deterent/warning.
5. The second, even more unnecessary, bomb was completely and utterly criminal. All communication was broken in Japan and america gave no time for the Japanese to assess the first bomb's damage before detonating the second.
I feel it is inappropriate to respond to these questions in the Al Queda Thread, as it is off-topic.
However, I do not feel the issues raised by Dronestar are as clear-cut as his posts would indicate.
I take particular issue with his statement from Message 128
quote:
Of the many items, which particular items on my list do you find dubious? I am thinking at least some of the points were "un-contestable" to moral and intelligent people.
First, I believe that I am not totally without morals or intelligence when I disagree with what I view as an over simplistic interpretation of the events that led to the surrender of Japan.
Second, I disagree that the decision to use atomic bombs, was, or even considering some modern scholarship, somehow "un-contestible" given the time and circumstance.
I also reiterate "I wish it didn't happen." However, given the times, I can understand why the decision was made and would like to argue how the decision was not only likely, but also damn near inevitable, despite the horrid consequences to the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians of all ages and genders who lost their lives.
In this debate, I intend to use both primary and secondary sources to explain why I feel Dronestar's five points are either an oversimplification or based upon limited and/or biased information.
I am open to either a regular OP open to all or a great debate, Dronestar's choice.
{ABE} Perhaps all involved, including myself, can learn something new {/ABE}
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Edited by anglagard, : replace the term questions with the more accurate assertions, first sentence after first quote.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-08-2011 8:19 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 4 by dronestar, posted 07-08-2011 10:35 AM anglagard has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13089
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2 of 140 (623113)
07-08-2011 8:06 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4346 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


(2)
Message 3 of 140 (623119)
07-08-2011 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
07-08-2011 3:27 AM


hey Japan, met the Democrats.
BOOM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 07-08-2011 3:27 AM anglagard has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1436
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 4 of 140 (623143)
07-08-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
07-08-2011 3:27 AM


Let the short debate begin
Hi anglagard,
anglagard writes:
First, I believe that I am not totally without morals or intelligence when I disagree with what I view as an over simplistic interpretation of the events that led to the surrender of Japan.
Hmmm. In this specific case, you are FOR specifically targeting and bombing civilians (a lot of them!), that includes women, children and babies. Am I correct?
Really?
I am curious, what is YOUR definition of a war crime or terrorist act? Seriously. Be specific.
Ok . . .
I don't see this going too far since you already dismissed my supporting linkS. What more can I do?
Here, for the third time, is my list of reasons showing that the bombing of Hiroshima and Negasaki were war crimes and unnecessary. Please SPECIFY EACH ITEM that you disagree:
1. america intercepted messages from Japan to Russia indicating JAPAN WANTED to SURRENDER.
2. Japan had already considered surrendering if america would just allow Japan's Emperor to keep his seat on the throne. america said no, but AFTER bombing Negasaki and Hiroshima, america gave into Japan's request.
3. america knew japan would surrender unconditionally when Japan found out that Russia would join the fight. So, america hastened the two bombings BEFORE Japan COULD surrender for an american show of power toward Russia.
4. if ANY regards towards human life was any factor at all, america could have detonated the first bomb over water as a deterent/warning.
5. The second, even more unnecessary, bomb was completely and utterly criminal. All communication was broken in Japan and america gave no time for the Japanese to assess the first bomb's damage before detonating the second.
PS: For what it's worth, my father also served in Japan after the war. His OPINION is that it was criminal and unnecessary also.
Edited by dronester, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 07-08-2011 3:27 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by 1.61803, posted 07-08-2011 11:00 AM dronestar has replied
 Message 8 by fearandloathing, posted 07-08-2011 11:55 AM dronestar has replied
 Message 13 by frako, posted 07-08-2011 12:53 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 07-08-2011 2:01 PM dronestar has not replied
 Message 34 by anglagard, posted 07-08-2011 7:15 PM dronestar has not replied
 Message 37 by anglagard, posted 07-08-2011 7:58 PM dronestar has not replied
 Message 40 by Taq, posted 07-11-2011 1:33 AM dronestar has not replied
 Message 43 by AZPaul3, posted 07-11-2011 1:13 PM dronestar has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1622 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 5 of 140 (623148)
07-08-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by dronestar
07-08-2011 10:35 AM


Re: Let the short debate begin
1. america intercepted messages from Japan to Russia indicating JAPAN WANTED to SURRENDER.
Does not mean they would have.
2. Japan had already considered surrendering if america would just allow Japan's Emperor to keep his seat on the throne.
america said no, but AFTER bombing Negasaki and Hiroshima, america gave into Japan's request.
America demanded unconditional surrender, concessions made after surrender where on American terms.
3. america knew japan would surrender unconditionally when Japan found out that Russia would join the fight. So, america hastened the two bombings BEFORE Japan COULD surrender for an american show of power toward Russia.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory
4. if ANY regards towards human life was any factor at all, america could have detonated the first bomb over water as a deterent/warning.
It took two bombs to force Japans surrender
5. The second, even more unnecessary, bomb was completely and utterly criminal. All communication was broken in Japan and america gave no time for the Japanese to assess the first bomb's damage before detonating the second.
Japan refused to surrender after the first bomb was dropped.
PS: For what it's worth, my father also served in Japan after the war. His OPINION is that it was criminal and unnecessary also.
Japans invading the United States was criminal and unnecessary as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by dronestar, posted 07-08-2011 10:35 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by dronestar, posted 07-08-2011 11:06 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1436
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 6 of 140 (623152)
07-08-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by 1.61803
07-08-2011 11:00 AM


Re: Let the short debate begin
Thanks 1.61803 for the well thought-out reply for each item, especially number 5. You have me nearly convinced I am wrong.
Kudos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by 1.61803, posted 07-08-2011 11:00 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by 1.61803, posted 07-08-2011 11:08 AM dronestar has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1622 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 7 of 140 (623153)
07-08-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by dronestar
07-08-2011 11:06 AM


Re: Let the short debate begin
Hi, I agree two wrongs do not make a right. I concede number five.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by dronestar, posted 07-08-2011 11:06 AM dronestar has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 8 of 140 (623158)
07-08-2011 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by dronestar
07-08-2011 10:35 AM


Re: Let the short debate begin
Hi dronestar,
Hmmm. In this specific case, you are FOR specifically targeting and bombing civilians (a lot of them!), that includes women, children and babies. Am I correct?
I dont exactly see it as being any different then when we, or our allies, chose to area bomb any other cities, Dresden, Hamburg...ect.
quote:
The attack during the last week of July, 1943, Operation Gomorrah, created one of the greatest firestorms raised by the RAF and United States Army Air Force in World War II,[2] killing 42,600 civilians and wounding 37,000 in Hamburg and practically destroying the entire city.
wiki
quote:
It is argued that Dresden was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, a "Florence on the Elbe" (Elbflorenz), as it was known, and the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.[5][6]
In March 1945 the NS regime ordered its press to publish death toll numbers for the Dresden raids of 200,000. Since then, some death toll estimates were as high as 500,000.[7] An independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 reported a maximum of 25,000 victims.[8]
wiki
quote:
The purpose of the area bombardment of cities was laid out in a British Air Staff paper, dated September 23, 1941:
"The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death.
I think it is pretty clear that we were no less moral in using the nukes then we were when we area bombed many targets in the war, we used these same tactics mant times in Japan before we dropped our new bomb.
A test over water wouldn't have proved anything, something has to be destroyed in order to fully understand the bombs power, did it have to be 2 cites?? Maybe not. We did not drop any conventional bombs on those cities prior to the nukes so all the damage would be easily seen to have been a result of the nuclear bombs.
We will never fully Know what Truman's advisers told him, hell he didn't even know about the bombs til FDR died, I am sure he relied heavily on what the experts and his military advisers told him, maybe you might know of something he wrote about it later in life?

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by dronestar, posted 07-08-2011 10:35 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by dronestar, posted 07-08-2011 12:12 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 9 of 140 (623159)
07-08-2011 12:01 PM


Why are Nagasaki and Hiroshima considered different?
Is the issue regarding Nagasaki and Hiroshima simply a matter of awe that only two bombs were used?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1436
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 10 of 140 (623161)
07-08-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by fearandloathing
07-08-2011 11:55 AM


Re: Let the short debate begin
Hey F&L,
I received your pm, thanks.
F&L writes:
I dont exactly see it as being any different then when we, or our allies, chose to area bomb any other cities, Dresden, Hamburg...ect.
C'mon, . . . you certainly heard that two wrongs don't make a right. E.G., if your neighbor raped babies, would that make it allright for you to rape babies? If Hitler* invades Poland on false allegations, is it all-right for Bush Jr. (and Tony Blair) to invade Iraq on false allegations?
F&L writes:
A test over water wouldn't have proved anything,
Sweet-baby-Jesus!, . . . if someone wanted to show their destructive capability, and then exploded an ATOMIC BOMB for show, I think I would give that person some credibility. Goodness, have you ever seen film of the bombing? It appears kinda impressive to me.
* We are already discussing war criminals, thus Hitler examples are fair game, Godwin does not apply.
Edited by dronester, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by fearandloathing, posted 07-08-2011 11:55 AM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by fearandloathing, posted 07-08-2011 12:41 PM dronestar has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4263 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 11 of 140 (623163)
07-08-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by dronestar
07-08-2011 12:12 PM


Re: Let the short debate begin
C'mon, . . . you certainly heard that two wrongs don't make a right.
I am not saying it was right, we done many things as far as area bombing goes that I feel was wrong. What I am saying is that our choice to use the bombs on Japan was no different then when we targeted other cities for area bombing. It was a different kind of weapon is all. I am not sure if we fully understood the long term effects, if we did we may have chosen a different route as far as a display goes.
if someone wanted to show their destructive capability, and then exploded an ATOMIC BOMB for show
I agree, but we only had a limited number of bombs ready to use as weapons, we would've had 3 more in sept and 3 in oct with an increase in production after that if I remember correctly. Popping one off over water does not show how destructive it truly is, with our limited number available a show was probably viewed as a potential waste. Waiting would've been an option, but I don't know how it would've affected our plans on an invasion, and I still feel like somthing needed to be destroyed in order to show them what they were facing. I have often wondered if it was ever suggested to drop one on one of the smaller less populated islands.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by dronestar, posted 07-08-2011 12:12 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


(2)
Message 12 of 140 (623169)
07-08-2011 12:53 PM


Missing considerations
There are an awful lot of other considerations missing when discussing justification for the use of nuclear weapons. The casualties actually inflicted were unanticipated even by the American military and were the result of a "perfect storm" of specific conditions.
The first question that should have been asked when speaking about the justification of an action is "why did they do it in the first place?" None of the items listed in the OP deal with why the decision to drop the first and second nuclear devices on Japan was made in the first place.
The reason, quite simply, is the threat of an actual invasion of Japan. Remember, the American military had suffered heavy losses while "island hopping;" the Japanese didn't tend to surrender even when defeat was inevitable, and even civilians would join combat with whatever lay at hand. The casualties on both sides were immense.
An invasion of the main Japanese island was projected to cost far more lives, both American and Japanese, both military and civilian, than nuclear weapons were predicted to cause. US military leadership was very afraid of the cost in lives and equipment that would be required for a Japanese invasion; Normandy was still fresh in everyone's minds, remember - imagine Normandy and the invasion of Europe, except that instead of greeting the Allies as liberators, the civilians would grab a rifle or knife or sword or pitchfork and attack Allied troops on site, where suicide attacks were not unlikely, and where "surrender" was a foreign concept.
WWII had already involved mass-bombings. The only difference between the firebombing of German cities and the use of a nuclear weapon is the specific number of planes (and thus casualties) and bombs required to do the job. Nuclear weapons are more scary because a single device can do the work of thousands of conventional bombs, but the results are similar. Bear in mind also that nobody knew at the time about the casualties due to radiation that would be caused.
As for dropping two...the American military was concerned that using only one device so late in the war would give the impression that we only had a single weapon, and so would fail to convince the Japanese leadership of their inevitable destruction if an unconditional surrender was not offered. A second device was then used over Nagasaki shortly after the first to show that the American military could continue to annihilate Japanese cities with impunity, and that surrender was now the only option available. This is not at all an unreasonable position.
And of course, as has already been mentioned, there was talk of surrender, but no surrender had been offered. Military actions would of course continue until a real surrender occurred, and to say "well, they shouldn't have continued to pursue military options 'cause the Japanese were ready to surrender" is patently absurd knowing that the Japanese could have surrendered at any time but did not, even in the few days after the first nuclear device was used and before the second. Everyone knows how to end a war - one side surrenders. Until there's a surrender, the war keeps going, end of story.
So just to summarize, nuclear weapons were not significantly worse than the carpet-bombing techniques already in use during the war; nuclear weapons were thought to be able to force a surrender without an actual invasion, which was projected to be far less costly in both Japanese and American lives; and the Japanese had not yet actually surrendered.
(Also, as a quick rebuttal, the Americans did not accept the terms of surrender that Japan had wanted; rather, Emperor Hirohito intervened and accepted the terms of surrender required by the Americans:
quote:
On August 6, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Late in the evening of August 8, in accordance with Yalta agreements but in violation of the Soviet—Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and soon after midnight on August 9, it invaded the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Later that day the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. The combined shock of these events caused Emperor Hirohito to intervene and order the Big Six to accept the terms for ending the war that the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration.
)
The decision to use nuclear weapons, therefore, was not unjustified at all. American and Japan were still in a state of war. Carpet bombing resulting in the destruction of entire cities was not unheard of during WWII. The projected casualties from using nuclear weapons was significantly less on both the American and Japanese side than the projected casualties of an invasion. Simply from a utilitarian standpoint, choosing to invade instead of using nuclear weapons would have been the immoral choice as it would have resulted in far more death. Surrender was not in the hands of the Americans; only the Japanese could offer surrender. One of the two options had to be taken, and so the Americans chose the option that would have ended the war more quickly and will less loss of life.
As for the actual casualties caused by the use of two nuclear weapons...
They turned out to be a lot higher than anyone anticipated, and this was largely avoidable.
In the time leading up to Hiroshima, American planes would fly over the Japanese mainland in flights of only three planes and drop small explosives that did little to no real damage. The purpose was to lull the Japanese military into largely disregarding these small flights as non-threatening; the fear was that a full air-raid response would result in the plane carrying the nuclear devices being shot down and failing in its mission. The plan worked - when Hiroshima was attacked, they didn't even sound the air raid alarm.
Unfortunately the plan worked too well. The Japanese had already constructed mass bomb shelters in case of a bombing attack. These shelters were concrete and would have protected the vast majority of the population from harm (both from the primary and secondary effects of a nuclear initiation) had they been used. But since the small flights of American planes were largely disregarded, nobody bothered to seek shelter at all. The results, of course, were horrific - many thousands of people were killed who did not need to die.
Nagasaki's story was similar. Nobody yet really believed what had happened in Hiroshima; we weren't in the age of cell phone cameras and instant communication. A small flight of American planes was "not a threat." Nobody used the bomb shelters. Casualties were far higher than the could have, and should have, been.
As to the points actually brought up in the OP...
1. america intercepted messages from Japan to Russia indicating JAPAN WANTED to SURRENDER.
Japan did not want to accept the terms of surrender set down by the Americans, which was the entire issue. If you want to debate whether the Americans should have accepted the Japanese terms for their surrender, that's an entirely separate debate, because it involves whether continuing to prosecute the war at all was justified, and has little to do with the specific manner of hostilities.
2. Japan had already considered surrendering if america would just allow Japan's Emperor to keep his seat on the throne. america said no, but AFTER bombing Negasaki and Hiroshima, america gave into Japan's request.
Wrong. The Japanese accepted the American terms of surrender. The terms were as follows:
quote:
On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:
the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.[1]
"The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed"
"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"
On the other hand, the declaration offered that:
"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
"Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, ... Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
"The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible government."
The only mention of "unconditional surrender" came at the end of the declaration:
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." Contrary to what had been intended at its conception, the declaration made no mention of the Emperor at all. Allied intentions on issues of utmost importance to the Japanese, including whether Hirohito was to be regarded as one of those who had "misled the people of Japan" or even a war criminal, or alternatively whether the Emperor might potentially become part of a "peacefully inclined and responsible government" were thus left unstated.
The "prompt and utter destruction" clause has been interpreted as a veiled warning about American possession of the atomic bomb (which had been successfully tested on the first day of the conference for future use).
The Japanese refused to accept the specific terms that were set down as the only acceptable terms for their surrender...until after nuclear weapons were utilized. Shortly after Nagasaki, Emperor Hirohito forced the leadership of Japan to accept these terms. The US didn't budge at all, contrary to what the OP states. After the unconditional surrender was offered, then talks began regarding the future of Japan.
Again, we can debate whether the US should have taken such a hard-line stance in demanding specific nonnegotiable terms for surrender, but that's a debate on whether the war should have continued at all, not a debate on whether nuclear weapons were justified.
3. america knew japan would surrender unconditionally when Japan found out that Russia would join the fight. So, america hastened the two bombings BEFORE Japan COULD surrender for an american show of power toward Russia.
Bullshit. I reiterate what I've already quoted:
quote:
On August 6, the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Late in the evening of August 8, in accordance with Yalta agreements but in violation of the Soviet—Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and soon after midnight on August 9, it invaded the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. Later that day the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki.
There were two days between the first nuclear weapon and the Russian declaration of war. Another day passed before the Russians invaded a Japanese-controlled territory and the second bomb was dropped. The US used two nuclear weapons in relatively short order to convince the Japanese that more such devices existed and that the absolute destruction would continue if surrender was not offered. The Russians had already joined the war by the time the second device was used. Three full days lapsed between the first and second nuclear weapons - ample time for a declaration of surrender, which was not offered.
When you're at war, and you don't surrender, it's expected that the enemy will continue to attack!
4. if ANY regards towards human life was any factor at all, america could have detonated the first bomb over water as a deterent/warning.
We had two. Two nuclear weapons after the first device was tested. It was just Fat Man and Little Boy; we used them close together to provide the illusion that we had many, but we only had two.
You don't waste a weapon by detonating it over water. You take out a military target to eliminate the opponent's ability and will to continue to resist. The ability to annihilate cities in bombing attacks was already very well established in WWII; that we could now do it with a single weapon rather than thousands in a coordinated strike is merely a detail. The Japanese were amply warned that the US intended to utterly destroy cities if surrender was not offered, through leaflets dropped over Japan by American bombers.
5. The second, even more unnecessary, bomb was completely and utterly criminal. All communication was broken in Japan and america gave no time for the Japanese to assess the first bomb's damage before detonating the second.
Three days. The Japanese had three days to realize that Hiroshima was gone. You don't need to do much assessment to determine that one of your cities is a blasted wasteland! The US didn't use both nuclear weapons on the same day; they didn't use them within 24 or 48 hours; they waited three full days before using the second nuclear weapon, sufficient time for Japan to accept the terms of their surrender, and little enough time to fully establish the perception that more such weapons existed.
Moreover, as I've already explained, the reason behind using the second weapon so close to the first was to provide the illusion that many nuclear devices were primed and ready for use on Japan should surrender not be offered immediately. The Japanese offered no surrender in the meantime despite having the means to do so, and so the war was continued.
Now again, we can debate whether the US and its allies should have been so hard-line in demanding Japan's unconditional surrender. We can debate whether the US should have been more eager to seek a diplomatic end to hostilities.
But in the absence of a surrender or negotiations, the military had two choices: nuclear weapons or invasion.
Nuclear weapons cost no American lives, and were projected to cost fewer Japanese lives than an invasion. Nuclear weapons would end the war quickly, rather than a drawn out campaign of additional island-hopping and an eventual invasion of the main island, followed by continuing to fight in mainland Japan until the Japanese leadership surrendered. Nuclear weapons would minimize (yes, minimize) civilian deaths because bomb shelters were readily available, and because civilians had been shown to attack Allied troops in previous battles in the Pacific, forcing Allied soldiers to kill them and painting a grim picture for civilians in an invasion.
Simple utilitarian ethics make the usage of nuclear weapons the obviously more moral choice if hostilities were to be continued at all.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by dronestar, posted 07-08-2011 1:27 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 17 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 07-08-2011 2:17 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 13 of 140 (623170)
07-08-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by dronestar
07-08-2011 10:35 AM


Re: Let the short debate begin
I am curious, what is YOUR definition of a war crime or terrorist act? Seriously. Be specific.
Well back then it was legal now it would be a ware crime. Specific targeting of civilians.
A civilian under international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces or other militia.
Civilian - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by dronestar, posted 07-08-2011 10:35 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by dronestar, posted 07-08-2011 1:39 PM frako has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1436
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 14 of 140 (623179)
07-08-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rahvin
07-08-2011 12:53 PM


Re: Missing considerations
Mister Rhavin,
How sad. I usually expect so much more from YOU regarding humanitarian aspects.
What happened?
I have a project deadline today, so I'll address the other parts in detail later, sorry.
But in the meantime, consider this example:
If a soldier has his foot on the neck of an infant, and the infant refuses/is unable to declare "surrender", would it be Ok for the soldier to step on the infant's neck and crack it?
Japan was a defeated nation before the bombs, fact. america ran out of bombing sites as the sites had been leveled repeatedly over.
The invasion numbers were exaggerated out of thin air (now i'll need to find that excellent article I read many months ago about this for support).
Your long post didn't sufficiently address the fact the bombs murdered/targeted MOSTLY CIVILIANS. When is targeting and murdering DEFENSELESS civilians part of war?
I asked before, what is the definition of war crimes and terrorism?
What happened to your humanity dude? I am sad for you.
Edited by dronester, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 07-08-2011 12:53 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 07-08-2011 2:22 PM dronestar has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1436
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 15 of 140 (623180)
07-08-2011 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by frako
07-08-2011 12:53 PM


Re: Let the short debate begin
Thanks Frako,
Fraco writes:
Specific targeting of civilians.
Why do only non-Americans (and some non-Britians) get this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by frako, posted 07-08-2011 12:53 PM frako has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024