Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[ChuckM]

French have this lovely say: "With "IF" you can put the entire city of PARIS inside a bottle". No it is just that, there is nothing more to say really from my point of view, I don't know about other people...

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

 

Isn't conventional modern warfare overwhelmingly asymmetric anyways? With one side usually being vastly better equipped and trained, and the other cornered.

Yes. Because modern countries don't dare going to full scale war against each other any longer. 

 

"The World is much more peacefull...." Seriously?

I am speechless and you are right I m not coming here with any new argument because there is nothing to argue really. Humans always killed humans what difference that make if it is during Wars Genocides or In one drop... You win I got no argument to justify something I believe cannot and would never been justified. I don t have any agument it is just a strong belief and I will not try to convince you.

The world is actually very peaceful nowadays compared to how it has been throughout pretty much all of recorded history. 

[Maithanet]

French have this lovely say: "With "IF" you can put the entire city of PARIS inside a bottle". No it is just that, there is nothing more to say really from my point of view, I don't know about other people...

rright.  Well, I think my hypothetical was pretty fair and potentially illuminating about your perspective, but whatever.

 

In the future, you probably shouldn't start threads if you aren't willing to engage in a real discussion. 

[awesome possum]

French have this lovely say: "With "IF" you can put the entire city of PARIS inside a bottle". No it is just that, there is nothing more to say really from my point of view, I don't know about other people...

 

Your point of view just sort of ignores or handwaves away the fact that more people would have died had the bombs not been dropped and the allies were forced to invade Japan.  It looks like you're just saying, "BOMBS BAD" while ignoring any and all context for said bombs.

[straits]

 

Your point of view just sort of ignores or handwaves away the fact that more people would have died had the bombs not been dropped and the allies were forced to invade Japan.  It looks like you're just saying, "BOMBS BAD" while ignoring any and all context for said bombs.

 

I think you're right that ChuckM isn't addressing the potential alternatives if the bombings didn't take place, but more people dying is not a "fact" at all. It's justification in retrospective.

[Fez]

Right or wrong, whatever, but I sure as shit wouldn't say humane

 

From the utilitarian perspective, increasing the overall 'good,' in this case by saving net lives, is absolutely humane.

[Maithanet]

 

I think you're right that ChuckM isn't addressing the potential alternatives if the bombings didn't take place, but more people dying is not a "fact" at all. It's justification in retrospective.

You are correct that it is not a fact, it is conjecture, although there is a fair amount of historical evidence to support that view.  I wouldn't call it justification in retrospective, the reason they were dropped at the time was to convince Japan to surrender, to avoid having to resort to a bloody land invasion, and to put an end to Japan's regime (and it's bloody occupation of large parts of asia).  That reason really hasn't changed, although there is a lot of new evidence (for both sides) about whether such a step was indeed necessary. 

[TerraPrime]

Please, Please, please.... Just say it was wrong to use it. they didn't know at the time what they were playing with. Now, WE KNOW!  NEVER NEVER NEVER again, and just get rid of Them. So we can still be here to commemorate the 100 anniversary and keep on arguing here.

 

Yes I know, Dream on...

 

The use of the atomic bombs is indeed a difficult moral question, and that's what makes it worthwhile to keep revisiting it and re-evaluating it. Your approach of reducing the event into a simple right or wrong binary is actaully a disservice to the historical event because it robs the complexity involved in this. There are indeed both good and bad moral decisions made regarding the use of atomic weapons, and refusing to acknolwedge half the equation cannot be seen as a full answer. 

[Littlefingers In The Air]

My question is, with what was known to Truman at the time, ignoring right vs wrong, would y'all have dropped the bombs?

[awesome possum]

 

I think you're right that ChuckM isn't addressing the potential alternatives if the bombings didn't take place, but more people dying is not a "fact" at all. It's justification in retrospective.

 

I disagree.  It's not a "fact" in that it exists within our history but basic math shows that with an invasion of the main Japanese islands, more than 150-250,000 people would have died, which is the estimated death toll of the two bombs.  As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Japan claimed to have 28,000,000 civilians ready to mobilize if they were invaded.  The Battle of Okinawa - which happened before the formation of the Volunteer Fighting Corps - saw an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 civilians killed.  And again, this was before the civilians were being conscripted into the army.

 

Okinawa had an estimated population of 300,000, so between 33% and 50% of the civilian population were killed in just that one place.  Adding to that, an estimated 100,000 died in the Tokyo firebombings.  So between Tokyo and Okinawa alone - two sites that had nothing to do with the big bombs, almost as many civilians died as from the two big bombs.  That was from a standard invasion and firebombing, something that would have had to be done all across the country without the big bombs.  

 

So yeah, I think it's a fact that more people would have died had the Allies been forced to invade.  

[Maithanet]

 

I disagree.  It's not a "fact" in that it exists within our history but basic math shows that with an invasion of the main Japanese islands, more than 150-250,000 people would have died

 

So yeah, I think it's a fact that more people would have died had the Allies been forced to invade.  

But you're still skipping a step.  We don't know that without the A bombs that an invasion would have been necessary.  I think it would have been, but it is not a certainty.

 

EDIT:  And LiTA, I am glad I don't have to make that decision.  But knowing what I know, yes, I would drop the bomb.

[JoeyBanana]

My problem has always been with why Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the use of the bombs themselves. Why cities full of civilians. Why two?

 

Surely, if saving lives was the goal, why not drop it somewhere with less innocent victims (you know less deaths)? I reckon there were other reasons for dropping the bombs like that.

 

The conventional bombing raids didn't scare Japan into unconditional surrender and the casualties were higher. Yet it didn't work. Probably because killing tens of thousands of people doesn't intimidate generals like the raw power of nukes does.

 

While i do share the opinion that it prevented more bloodshed, it wasn't humane. That's just preposterous.

[The guy from the Vale]

What Joey said. Dropping a second bomb just three days after the first may very well have been far too fast. Also, the choice of target isn't above and beyond criticism.

 

That at least one bomb had to be dropped is, while still a horrendous choice to make, at least understandable from an utilitarian perspective. However, I'd caution that utilitarianism isn't the only plausible ethical concept around, and e.g. from a Kantian perspective, dropping any  nuclear bombs was ethically suspect. 

[Maithanet]

My problem has always been with why Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not the use of the bombs themselves. Why cities full of civilians. Why two?

 

Surely, if saving lives was the goal, why not drop it somewhere with less innocent victims (you know less deaths)? I reckon there were other reasons for dropping the bombs like that.

Saving lives wasn't the goal.  Has anyone said that it was?  The goal was to compel Japan to surrender, by any means necessary.  Ending the war quickly did (I believe) save lives, but that was not the goal. 

 

Dropping the bomb on a military target was deemed too risky because high level bombing was so inaccurate that they worried they would miss the target completely (which would significantly reduce the bomb's impact as a psychological weapon).

[Red Tiger]

My question is, with what was known to Truman at the time, ignoring right vs wrong, would y'all have dropped the bombs?

Yes

[Howdyphillip]

 

From the utilitarian perspective, increasing the overall 'good,' in this case by saving net lives, is absolutely humane.

So, in theory, you are in favor of the Iraq war because sanctions were killing more people quicker than the actual invasion?

[Swordfish]

My question is, with what was known to Truman at the time, ignoring right vs wrong, would y'all have dropped the bombs?

 

 

Yes.

[polishgenius]

French have this lovely say: "With "IF" you can put the entire city of PARIS inside a bottle". No it is just that, there is nothing more to say really from my point of view, I don't know about other people...

 

Suggesting that the bombs could not possibly have been the best option in an awful situation because Paris is really big is basically a variation on the Chewbacca defence, right?


(for my part, I'm prepared to believe that Hiroshima might have been necessary, although I'm still not sure it had to be a major city on first go. I'm with those who really, really question the immediate necessity of Nagasaki, though).

[Maithanet]

 

(for my part, I'm prepared to believe that Hiroshima might have been necessary, although I'm still not sure it had to be a major city on first go. I'm with those who really, really question the immediate necessity of Nagasaki, though).

I understand that, I think the case for the necessity of Nagasaki is a bit harder to make.  But it's not like they were dropped the same afternoon - they were three days apart.  The decisionmakers in Tokyo were well aware of what happened in Hiroshima, and were still engaging in diplomacy to try to negotiate a conditional surrender to keep their empire.  It is possible that waiting another week would have given the Japanese enough time to come around to surrender.  But the opposite is also possible, that by then they would have grown more used to the idea of nuclear weapons, and that the psychological impact would have been reduced had it been dropped on say, August 15th. 

[Arakan]

I will say only so much: it's a myth to make oneself feel better that it was the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which forced Japan to surrender. They played a part but nothing more.

Much much more decisive has been the (often intentionally ignored) Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation (08/09-08/20). Within less than two weeks the Red Army annihilated the Kwantung Army. As the Japanese military command was quite aware what Germany's fate had been, this pushed them to surrender to the US to avoid a Soviet Invasion.

And the Soviets would have invaded Japan mainland. The Americans knew that, the Japenese knew, the Soviets knew. In contrast to the US, Stalin didnt mind the bloodshed. After all, what are an additional one million dead soldiers? For him, nothing.