The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

[Vanoi]

In fact,Truman has stated,
Do you honestly believe, from the bottom of your heart, that Truman wished to avoid the killling of civilians, using two atomic bombs-and completely obliterating two cities, in a quick succession?

his concern was for American soldiers, not Japanese civilians. Though an invasion would have killed more civilians than the bombs did.

In other words, for the sake of pure terror, right?

The Japanese didn't understand anything but pure terror.

[Macunaíma]

Yes an invasion costing the lives of thousands of American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers (possibly millions considering how Japanese soldiers were known to almost never surrender) and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Oh and of course the thousands of POWs and civilians that would still be dieing under Japanese rule.

Much better right?


Soldiers would not be the only ones dieing. Its predicted that hundreds of thousands of civilians would also still die. Japan mobilized 26 million civilians to defend the islands. How many of them do you think would die defending the islands? How many American and Japanese soldiers do you think would die fighting each other?

Those civilians also chose to be there.

You haven't read the thread have you? Its been stated numerous times the reasons behind the bombings.

But tell me. How would dropping the bomb in the middle of nowhere scare the Japanese?

I'd be pretty scared if the ultimate weapon was detonated near where I live.

They were. However attacking them there would have not made them surrender.

In my opinion everything should have been tried before taking such an action. If they still had territories in continental Asia then the Allied forced hadn't finished there yet.

[conon394]

Then why not attack them there?

Because what would that have achieved lots of more dead US and UK soldiers, more dead Japanese soldiers and literally hundreds of thousands of more dead Chinese and sundry other civilians but would not have moved Japan to surrender one iota.

I'd be pretty scared if the ultimate weapon was detonated near where I live.

The US/UK had already demonstrated they could and would incinerate cities in Germany and in Tokyo (and what a dozen other cities) and Japan had not showed any loss of will not its leaders nor the trust and loyalty of it people in said leaders.

[Vanoi]

Those civilians also chose to be there.

Chose? Its their home. You can't seriously be justifying the deaths of civilians just because they were there?

I'd be pretty scared if the ultimate weapon was detonated near where I live.

If i detonated an atomic bomb near where you lived, i would have kill thousands of people. Japan is crowded. Like i said before you can't drop an atomic bomb in Japan without killing civilians.

In my opinion everything should have been tried before taking such an action.

Even if those actions kill more people than would have died in the bombings?

[Macunaíma]

Chose? Its their home. You can't seriously be justifying the deaths of civilians just because they were there?

Never. But it was a volunteer force.

If i detonated an atomic bomb near where you lived, i would have kill thousands of people. Japan is crowded. Like i said before you can't drop an atomic bomb in Japan without killing civilians.

Oh really? Try this out: http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/2...roundZero.html
(It's actually pretty fun and interesting)

Even if those actions kill more people than would have died in the bombings?

As you may have noticed, I don't judge if something is more worth doing by math.

[kentuckybandit]

Oh really? Try this out: http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/2...roundZero.html
(It's actually pretty fun and interesting)

While fun, what is the point of this? How does this prove that you could drop an atom bomb in Japan and kill no civilians?

[Vanoi]

Never. But it was a volunteer force.

Source? It never says whenever its volunteer or forced. I honestly think its probably a bit of both.

Nevertheless not all civilians killed would be fighting against the Americans. Many would just be in their homes and be mistaken for soldiers or just go unlucky and their homes get hit by bombs.

Oh really? Try this out: http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/2...roundZero.html
(It's actually pretty fun and interesting)

Japan is seriously a crowded place.

Its beside the point though considering again dropping a bomb in the middle of no where means nothing. What scares you more a bomb exploding in the middle of nowhere or watching a bomb obliterate a city and seeing the aftermath of it?

As you may have noticed, I don't judge if something is more worth doing by math.

What about the lives of thousands of people?

[Macunaíma]

While fun, what is the point of this? How does this prove that you could drop an atom bomb in Japan and kill no civilians?

If you play around a bit you'll see there are spots where you could drop a "Little Boy" or "Fat Man" without hitting anything... Otherwise it's pointless like you said.

Source? It never says whenever its volunteer or forced. I honestly think its probably a bit of both.

Nevertheless not all civilians killed would be fighting against the Americans. Many would just be in their homes and be mistaken for soldiers or just go unlucky and their homes get hit by bombs.

Oh, déjà vu...
And about the civilian militia, they were called Volunteer Fighting Corps, so I assume they were volunteers... We could speculate, but that's all that it would be.

Its beside the point though considering again dropping a bomb in the middle of no where means nothing. What scares you more a bomb exploding in the middle of nowhere or watching a bomb obliterate a city and seeing the aftermath of it?

You don't have to choose what scares mores, but what scares enough for a diplomatic solution appear (pretty rude diplomacy, anyway).

What about the lives of thousands of people?

The fact that it were thousands is just about maths again...

[kentuckybandit]

Dropping a bomb in the middle of nowhere would serve no purpose, only to 'waste' an expensive weapon, detonating in some isolated zone (forest, mountains, what have you) where no one would witness it, having no effect on the situation at hand.

[Vanoi]

If you play around a bit you'll see there are spots where you could drop a "Little Boy" or "Fat Man" without hitting anything... Otherwise it's pointless like you said.

I just used it and i managed to hit something......

You don't have to choose what scares mores, but what scares enough for a diplomatic solution appear (pretty rude diplomacy, anyway).

It wouldn't have scared them enough. Why the hell do you think they dropped it on a city? Because seeing one of their cities being obliterated by a bomb would have made them accept unconditional surrender.

The fact that it were thousands is just about maths again...

Then please provide another viable option other than"leave them alone"

[Macunaíma]

Dropping a bomb in the middle of nowhere would serve no purpose, only to 'waste' an expensive weapon, detonating in some isolated zone (forest, mountains, what have you) where no one would witness it, having no effect on the situation at hand.

Okay, I have a knife. I won't waste it and will stab someone tomorrow.

I just used it and i managed to hit something......

I didn't.

It wouldn't have scared them enough. Why the hell do you think they dropped it on a city? Because seeing one of their cities being obliterated by a bomb would have made them accept unconditional surrender.

Funny thing is that there is no way to tell. So, as I said, try everything before.

Then please provide another viable option other than"leave them alone"

I pointed a few already, but you didn't like it because you like math.

[Vanoi]

Okay, I have a knife. I won't waste it and will stab someone tomorrow.

Knife is re-usable. Atomic bombs are not.

I didn't.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Funny thing is that there is no way to tell. So, as I said, try everything before.

Its like talking to a wall.

Do you want me to explain the Psychological factor of seeing one of your towns destroyed in the blink of an eye over a bomb exploding in the middle of nowhere?

I pointed a few already, but you didn't like it because you like math.

The only other one i saw is when you suggested that the Allies attack Japan in Indochina, Indonesia, ect. However as i pointed out, those wouldn't have led to Japan surrendering. Japan at this point could really care less about losing conquered territory. They really just wanted to defend their own home islands.

[Macunaíma]

Knife is re-usable. Atomic bombs are not.

Last time I checked a-bombs didn't have a expiration date.

Do you want me to explain the Psychological factor of seeing one of your towns destroyed in the blink of an eye over a bomb exploding in the middle of nowhere?

No, I already agreed that bombing a town would cause more fear than bombing someplace else. But we're discussing if bombing somewhere near a town without killing anybody would cause the japanese fear enough to surrender (and, please, what were the conditions they said to surrender before the bombing, could you tell me?).

The only other one i saw is when you suggested that the Allies attack Japan in Indochina, Indonesia, ect. However as i pointed out, those wouldn't have led to Japan surrendering. Japan at this point could really care less about losing conquered territory. They really just wanted to defend their own home islands.

So it was the case of waiting them out.

[Vanoi]

Last time I checked a-bombs didn't have a expiration date.

They actually do. If the US still has atomic bombs from 50-60 years ago, they won't detonate.

I am not sure what kind of trigger the atomic bombs used, but i think the modern nuclear bombs use a trigger made from trigger made from tritium. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. So in 12 years the trigger would have decayed completely. Meaning you have a bomb that cannot detonate.

Like i said though, i don't know what kind of material they used to make the triggers on the atomic bombs.

No, I already agreed that bombing a town would cause more fear than bombing someplace else. But we're discussing if bombing somewhere near a town without killing anybody would cause the japanese fear enough to surrender (and, please, what were the conditions they said to surrender before the bombing, could you tell me?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

It was basically unconditional surrender.

So it was the case of waiting them out.

That was Japan's plan. Drag out the war more and more until the US conceded on surrender terms.

[kentuckybandit]

No, I already agreed that bombing a town would cause more fear than bombing someplace else. But we're discussing if bombing somewhere near a town without killing anybody would cause the japanese fear enough to surrender

This is unrealistic. The US government knew they had a powerful explosive weapon. They were fighting a war. Why would they have wasted resources detonating a (at this time) top secret and monumentally expensive weapon outside a town so as to harm no one? Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial and infrastructure targets. Do you drop a bomb where it will kill no one and hope it scares your enemy, or do you drop it on an industrial city so that, if the enemy does not sway, you have at least obliterated something of value to him?

I am not sure what kind of trigger the atomic bombs used

Neither am I, but I do know that the triggering mechanisms were separate from the bombs and the bomber crews had to physically arm the bombs while in the air.

[Ludicus]

What scares you more a bomb exploding in the middle of nowhere or watching a bomb obliterate a city and seeing the aftermath of it?

If that is so,it seems you are actually agreeing with me.

The obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, as you said (("The Japanese didn't understand anything but pure terror") an act of terrorism (terrorism=pure terror). But US military leaders (Truman,ect) continued to insist (a myth stubbornly maintained until today) in their public declarations, that the two bombs were directed toward military targets. ("The world will note that...").Yet, Marshall had previously declared that, "air action will have smashed practically every industrial target worth hitting in Japan".

The crucial question is - should we accept as a norm a barbaric act of pure terrorism in order to win a war, or hastening surrender? or, to put it another way, is terrorism an acceptable form of war? Think twice before answering. Whether such an attack is carried out by an unofficial group or armed forces, is clearly an act of terrorism (from the view point of the civilian targets!). In fact, is there any rational/moral justification for killing thousands of noncombatents under the rational that it will force a swift surrender?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In my opinion, never, under any circumstances.

Artorath

why is the Nazi bombing of Britain in principle correct, and is it considered unethical for some other reason?

Because it is the victors who write the history. The Judge who presided over the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal wrote,
"It would be sufficient for my present purpose to say that if any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegitimate in warfare, then, in the Pacific war, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of German Emperor during the first world war and of the Nazi leaders during the second world war".

And because,
"Western Civilization ...minimizes the uncomfortable facts that the British and the Americans were themselves also captive of an ideology that perpetrated the horrors of strategic bombing on civilian populations"
History, Memory, and the Representation of Britain’s Experience Department of History at McMaster University (previous post)

----
Caelius

.....

Congratulations on your new attitude, citizen Caelius.

[Vanoi]

The crucial question is - should we accept as a norm a barbaric act of pure terrorism in order to win a war, or hastening surrender? or, to put it another way, is terrorism an acceptable form of war? Think twice before answering. Whether such an attack is carried out by an unofficial group or armed forces, is clearly an act of terrorism (from the view point of the civilian targets!).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In my opinion, never, under any circumstances.

Your again confusing terrorism for total war. Though similar both have different aims. The bombings in WWII were pretty much total war. Civilians became targets. It was the norm during WWII. Every nation did it. Japan's bombing campaign killed 600,000 Chinese civilians. Germany killed 70,000 British and 200,000 Soviet civilians. The US and UK killed hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians.

It was all justified in the fact that civilians contributed to the enemy's war effort thus they became legitimate targets.

Do i think we should accept total war as a norm? No. Its horrible war strategy. I don't believe in killing civilians. At least in this modern day age. However in WWII things were much much different.

In fact, is there any rational/moral justification for killing thousands of noncombatents under the rational that it will force a swift surrender?

Is their a moral justification? No. There is no moral justification for killing civilians. Is their a rational justification? Yes. Considering the situation and the options available. We have to remember though. This is World War II. The most devastating war in mankind. The war could have not been won if the nations decided against total war.

[Ludicus]

Your again confusing terrorism for total war

That's where we disagree...

---

Is their a moral justification? No...Is their a rational justification? Yes

Have you read the Hobbesian explanation why it can never be according to reason to be immoral? it is irrational to act immorally.
Edit,

terrorism..total war. Though similar both have different aims

It´s irrational, illogical (and also hypocritical) to apply one kind of morality to the state´s use of violence in war and apply another kind of morality to the use of violence by a non-state agent. (insurgent or revolutionary). Just suppose that an revolutionary action is " just" or "legitimate". Do you approve the use of violence against innocent civilians as a rational utilitarian method in order to order to hasten the success of a revolution? you can´t have a double standard.

[Macunaíma]

They actually do. If the US still has atomic bombs from 50-60 years ago, they won't detonate.

I am not sure what kind of trigger the atomic bombs used, but i think the modern nuclear bombs use a trigger made from trigger made from tritium. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. So in 12 years the trigger would have decayed completely. Meaning you have a bomb that cannot detonate.

And a knife would get rusty and useless too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

It was basically unconditional surrender.

I guess the Japanese would consider that a dishonourable way to lose .
What terms the japanese themselves offered?

That was Japan's plan. Drag out the war more and more until the US conceded on surrender terms.

And which terms were these?

[Vanoi]

I guess the Japanese would consider that a dishonourable way to lose .
What terms the japanese themselves offered?

Like i said, unconditional surrender. Occupation of their country, them losing their entire empire, ect.

And which terms were these?

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_23.htm

According to these intelligence reports, the Japanese leaders were fully aware of their desperate situation but would continue to fight in the hope of avoiding complete defeat by securing a better bargaining position. Allied war-weariness and disunity, or some miracle, they hoped, would offer them a way out. "The Japanese believe," declared an intelligence estimate of 30 June, "that unconditional surrender would be the equivalent of national extinction, and there are as yet no indications that they are ready to accept such terms." [47] It appeared also to the intelligence experts that Japan might surrender at any time "depending upon the conditions of surrender" the Allies might offer. Clearly these conditions, to have any chance of acceptance, would have to include retention of the imperial system.

Its not completely clear what terms they would have wanted, but a few might be like keeping Taiwan and Korea, or even making it so their country isn't occupied.

Have you read the Hobbesian explanation why it can never be according to reason to be immoral? it is irrational to act immorally.

And thats where we disagree because i believe you can act rational be still be acting immorally.

It´s irrational, illogical (and also hypocritical) to apply one kind of morality to the state´s use of violence in war and apply another kind of morality to the use of violence by a non-state agent. (insurgent or revolutionary).

What kind of morality am i applying? Have i said total war is morally acceptable?

Just suppose that an revolutionary action is " just" or "legitimate". Do you approve the use of violence against innocent civilians as a rational utilitarian method in order to order to hasten the success of a revolution? you can´t have a double standard.

I just said i don't believe in killing civilians. I really don't get what your point is.