Why was it okay for America to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Just answer the question]

But 9/11 was wrong?

Or even the US bombing of North Vietnam?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hiroshima and Nagasaki total death's combined: 129,000 - 226,000

US bombing over North Vietnam civilian deaths: 30,000 - 182,000

9/11: 3000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So why was 9/11 wrong but those two right?

[Swiss Army Cheese]

Because back then America hadn't declared war on (or accepted Terror's declaration of war) Terror. America was allied with Terror, and when you or your allies do something it is OK.

[AqD]

How would they end the war without killing?

The first two were successes, success itself justifies. One ended victorious and the other hopelessly lost despite the grand fireworks. 9/11 didn't end anything and it's not like they want to achieve anything but prolonged war at all.

[conon394]

But 9/11 was wrong?

Or even the US bombing of North Vietnam?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hiroshima and Nagasaki total death's combined: 129,000 - 226,000

US bombing over North Vietnam civilian deaths: 30,000 - 182,000

9/11: 3000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So why was 9/11 wrong but those two right?

Because it ended a total swiftly and got the Japanese leadership to formally capitulate to the occupation. No other alternative looked not to involve far more killing and likely a grinding guerrilla war. Although I think the second bomb should probably had been a demonstration drop or a true isolated military target. Neither Germany nor Japan ever make the right scientific/technical leaps to see a bomb as anything other a massive undertaking that would not really produce a useful weapon or the ability to build many of them. One proved the US had one and would use it, 2 were needed to show the Allies had many and could really deliver prompt and utter destruction.

[Mayer]

The Japense were going to surrender anyway, without the nukes. The dropping of the bombs was just to impress the soviets.

And obviously it wasn't OK, but a crass war crime. Incinerating women and children on the spot and have rest die of radiation sickness...

[conon394]

The Japense were going to surrender anyway, without the nukes. The dropping of the bombs was just to impress the soviets.

No they were not. Even after the first bomb the High command still wanted to retain its government, Formosa, and the militaristic system that exited they had no intention of surrendering.

[Mayer]

Do you want to keep your government? Would the US abandon its sacred constitution in a similarly adverse situation?
The military in Japan above all else wanted to protect the divine emperor, failing to do so, they would commit suicide.

[Vanoi]

Do you want to keep your government? Would the US abandon its sacred constitution in a similarly adverse situation?
The military in Japan above all else wanted to protect the divine emperor, failing to do so, they would commit suicide.

The Japanese could have accepted unconditional surrender at anytime. Yet they did not. You don't get to start a war in the Pacific and get to come out of it unscathed.

[Prodromos]

Judging by some of the Japanese cartoons I've come across, I think maybe two nukes weren't enough.

[Mayer]

And US Social Justice Warriors revalue Pearl Harbor.

[95thrifleman]

The OP opens with the flawed concept that 9/11 was wrong. I'm sure many Americans are pissed about it but we got pissed about London and a fair few Germans got pissed about Dresden.

Fact is, the twin towers where a legitimate target, a commerce centre and icon. Remember that the 9/11 attacks where directed at the Pentagon and White House along with the WTC, it was a carefully considered strike designed to cause maximum impact.

The problem is people try to apply black and white morality to warfare, legitimise their side and condemn the other. The fact is, conflict is inherently amoral and normal social and cultural morality has to be suspended in order to engage in said conflict.

Personaly I rather respect and admire AQ for 9/11 (from a purely operational perspective), it was very well planned and executed and the resulting conflicts damaged America politicaly and economicly while dragging the US into a protracted conflict. A few centuries from now it'll be considered in the same way as Taranto or Little Big Horn, without the emotion and politics engendered currenty.

[Mayer]

@95thrifleman
I suppose, if you have no moral concerns about bombing civilians, it is only consistent that you have no problems with terrorism targeting civilians.
But why then think the Holocaust was wrong? Comparatively, zyklon B is a a more humane method of killing than burning to death.

[95thrifleman]

@95thrifleman
I suppose, if you have no moral concerns about bombing civilians, it is only consistent that you have no problems with terrorism targeting civilians.
But why then think the Holocaust was wrong? Comparatively, zyklon B is a a more humane method of killing than burning to death.

Terrorism is what happens when a weaker faction takes on a stronger, without the means to fight a conventional war. It has the same political goals as warfare, mostly in terms of territory or a political objective.

The IRA and Bsque seperatists engaged in terrorism to further their goal of independence. The Israelisn and Irish eventuly succeeded in this and achieved independence for their respective nations.

AQ's goal was to lessen western influence on the islamic world and it can be argued that the islamic world post 9/11 is more conservative and hostile to non-islamic culture than prior to 9/11.

The holocaust was the industrial, organised destruction of an entire race of people solely because they belonged to that race. The British where not trying to kill every man, woman and child in Germany, we where trying to stop the war and restore peace in Europe. The Americans where not trying to kill every man, woman and child in Japan either.

The holocaust can not be compared to terrorism or the strategic bombing of cities to break the will of the people. The only way British, American actions could be compared to the holocaust is if we systematicly went through Germany and killed every man, woman and child just because they where German or if the Americans did the same in Japan.

I find it disturbing you can not comprehend this difference.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

@Mayer: You didn't know anything of the air raids of WW II.

The people didn't died in most cases by burning alive. They died because the fire storms consumed all oxygen. They suffocated in the bomb shelters and cellars.

You should read real history books from real historians, not only those from David Irving or Bernd Höcke.

Your obsession to apologize everything of Third Reich because "UK night bombing was more evilier" is very telling...

Anne Frank was also no member of an enemy occupation force. You can't compare genocide to terrorism.

[95thrifleman]

Judging by some of the Japanese cartoons I've come across, I think maybe two nukes weren't enough.

Could say much the same about America going from some of the filth your nation produces.

[Vanoi]

And US Social Justice Warriors revalue Pearl Harbor.

Pearl Harbor's significance was that it was a sneak attack.

[z3n]

Did America lose in Vietnam when they didn't use nukes? If so, why? Wasn't it the American public who were tired of their soldiers dying (even if they only died at a much smaller ratio vs their enemy)?


So was it worth it nuking Japan? Nobody will ever really know, you could say it started the cold war arms race but on the other hand history tells us the cold war arms race would have happened anyway.

I read multiple sources which say it wasn't necessary but really, we will never know.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well, its a litmus test for a number of concepts. One is whether the end justifies the means. In the case of discriminate bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it does, but give any other example, mostly ones that Americans are not the perpetrators, somehow the end doesn't justify the means. Consider this, since you gave 9/11 as an example, would the same people argue the same conclusion if 9/11 resulted in USA pulling its troops out of the Middle East and ceasing all programs to meddle in various government around the world? I doubt so.

[95thrifleman]

Well, its a litmus test for a number of concepts. One is whether the end justifies the means. In the case of discriminate bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it does, but give any other example, mostly ones that Americans are not the perpetrators, somehow the end doesn't justify the means. Consider this, since you gave 9/11 as an example, would the same people argue the same conclusion if 9/11 resulted in USA pulling its troops out of the Middle East and ceasing all programs to meddle in various government around the world? I doubt so.

The whole point of the op is to try and demonise America, it's quite stupid really. The op's premise tries to hold America to a higher moral standard than any other nation and tries to imply American actions are in isolation.

There is no "Was it ok for the Japanese to rape women with bayonets in Nanking." No "Was it ok for the soviets to use scorched earth tactics in Afghanistan." No "Was it ok for China to annex Tibet."

This is not a rational, fact based debate on the merits of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The op has pretermined that America was wrong and taken his usual moral stance of conveniance in yet another "I hate America and because i hate America so does the rest of the world" post.

[Mayer]

The people didn't died in most cases by burning alive. They died because the fire storms consumed all oxygen. They suffocated in the bomb shelters and cellars.

Again, that doesn't change anything. Why is germans suffocating in shelters OK and jews suffocating in gas chambers bad?
Either we condemn all war crimes or we condemn no war crimes. The hypocritical victor's narrative "(insert US enemy) is the bad one" is unacceptable.

You can't compare genocide to terrorism.

OK, instead of calling the Allied bombing campaign terrorism, i'll call it the german holocaust.

The holocaust was the industrial, organised destruction of an entire race of people solely because they belonged to that race. The British where not trying to kill every man, woman and child in Germany, we where trying to stop the war and restore peace in Europe.

But the Nazis did not succeed in killing the jewish people, not even in Europe. And Sir Arthur Harris wanted to systematically kill every man, woman and child in german cities/towns. I literally can't tell the difference.

I find it disturbing you can not comprehend this difference.

I find it disturbing that you defend war criminals.


Is that your house? It's now a legitimate target.
Oh wait, that's actual US policy in the middle east.

The whole point of the op is to try and demonise America, it's quite stupid really. The op's premise tries to hold America to a higher moral standard than any other nation and tries to imply American actions are in isolation.

You constantly attack a straw man, the op never argued that America should be held to a higher moral standard. He focuses on america's crimes, because they are ignored and/or defended in the public wheras the crimes of others are condemned. If the US were put on the same moral standard, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be vigorously criticised and the americans would have to be ashamed and pay tribute to the victims. The actions of the axis weren't in isolation either, that's not an excuse.