Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[Horza]

Out of curiousity did the public opinion in the US favor the oil embargo against Japan? In any event my understanding is that a lot of the measures that FDR took that antagonized the Axis powers were publicly known and supported by the Congress, so it was hardly some sort of secret conspiracy.

 

I'm not aware of any polling on the decision itself, but Japan's reputation with the American public had taken a significant slide after the 1937 Nanking Massacre and the Panay incident. The cause of Nationalist China was also effectively promoted by influential media outlets like Time magazine. Regarding the oil embargo itself, following Japan's takeover of French Indochina in July 1941 FDR had wanted to restrict Japanese purchase of the higher grade petroleum only, but Treasury and the Defense Economics Board went further and prevented any oil sales. It was a huge shock to the Japanese military, who hadn't anticipated a full embargo, but it didn't have the desired effect as Japan's strategic course had been fixed on southern expansion the previous summer and there was no one among the key decision makers who dared to steer away at the last minute.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

I think being horrified by scale is reasonable.
You have a difference of hundreds of planes dropping tons of individual bombs over several hours compare to a single bomb from a single plane doing the same within seconds.
I think horrified is a justified reaction.

 

Understandable reaction, certainly, but not necessarily rational, the point is why does it matter to an individual being killed in the bombing if someone down the street was killed by the same bomb at almost exactly the same time, or by a different bomb an hour away?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Arthur Hightower,

It doesn't matter to the dead. However, it matters to the living because deliberately targeting civilian populations, as with the Nuclear weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and with the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, are clearly illegal under the laws of war set out in the Geneva Conventions.

Under your rational why weren't posion gas attacks fine to use during WWII?

[A wilding]

Isn't there a broader question? Isn't deliberately targeting civilians, regardless of the weapon, always a war crime?

 

Always? What about a hypothetical where they are already targeting civilians themselves, and you believe that retaliation will make them stop, or at least reduce their capability to go on doing so?

 

It is easy to make judgements from the assumed position of having the capability to win, or at least to escape defeat, whatever choice you make, much harder when fighting to defend yourself from an abhorrent and dangerous aggressor.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

A wildling,

How could targeting civilians reduce their capacity to target civilians?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

A wildling,

How could targeting civilians reduce their capacity to target civilians?

 

 It reduces their capacity to make war period, which for the Nazis specifically involved targeting civilian populations. 

[A wilding]

How could targeting civilians reduce their capacity to target civilians?

 

Another possibility is that it might make them willing to agree a mutual suspension of attacks on civilians. Something like a limited nuclear exchange scenario for example.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ME,

Accepting that makes civilians into nothing more than cogs to be destroyed to harm a States ability to make war. It completely abrogates the principles of the Geneva conventions.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

ME,

Accepting that makes civilians into nothing more than cogs to be destroyed to harm a States ability to make war. It completely abrogates the principles of the Geneva conventions.

 

 Yeah, I'm not suggesting that two wrongs make a right, but I think you have to give A Wilding thought some weight. If it eventually stops your enemy from continuing to bomb your civilians, then it almost has to be considered. Do you condemn Churchill for going that route? After witnessing his capital being bombed for years? I don't think you can fault the Allies for responding in kind at that point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ME,

When the Allies firebombed Dresden could Germany hit Allied civilians with a similar mass bombing raid, could Japan when we hit Tokyo?

[Hayyoth]

ME,

When the Allies firebombed Dresden could Germany hit Allied civilians with a similar mass bombing raid, could Japan when we hit Tokyo?

Dresden is less justifiable than Hiroshima, however you're suggesting a moral equivalence where none exists.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

ME,

When the Allies firebombed Dresden could Germany hit Allied civilians with a similar mass bombing raid, could Japan when we hit Tokyo?

 

 No they couldn't. I get your point, but I'm not sure it's relevant given the circumstance. You're trying to land the knockout punch at that stage of the game. Using the same barometer, were the Brits in any position to bomb German civilians during the Blitz? Do you think this affected the German's considerations in the least? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ME,

Both the Blitz and Dresden were unjustified and illegal. That's my point. Winning doesn't make our actions justified or legal.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

ME,

Both the Blitz and Dresden were unjustified and illegal. That's my point. Winning doesn't make our actions justified or legal.

 

 Agreed, but I think it's hard to stand in judgment, especially when your enemy is employing these types of tactics. At the end of the day, do you want to be justified, or do you want to be defeated? Or maybe more pertinent, do you want to risk more of your soldiers/civilians vs killing more of their civilians in an effort to end the whole conflict that much faster. It's a brutal calculus, no doubt. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ME,

I'm not a utilitarian but I do see how utilitatianism can become a paramount consideration in war time.

[JoeyBanana]

How is committing massive resources and manpower to slaughtering civilians 'reducing the enemy's capability'? If anything, it greatly reduces your capability to protect your civilians and/or counterattack. You don't have infinite bombs and bullets. 

 

There is a difference between deliberately targeting civilians for revenge/terror and 'accepting' high civilian casualties when attacking military targets.

 

Not to mention the great irony of this thinking. They terrorize our civilians, so we obviously have to retaliate because if we do the same to them, they will stop. Let's just pretend escalation of violence is not a thing, i guess.

 

It's like responding to a bully punching your friend by punching one of his friends. Great way to guarantee more of exactly what you're trying to stop.

[Nihlus]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both major military targets. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd Army, had uniformed soldiers making up 15% of its population, surely had civilian militias and civilians working in effectively military non-combat roles making up more, and was a major industrial center, communications center, storage point, and assembly area for troops. Nagasaki's population was almost entirely employed working in factories making war materiel. That's why they were bombed.

 

I always found it interesting that such a disproportionately large amount of soldiers were killed in Hiroshima. They made up only 10-15% of the population, yet accounted for 20,000+ out of 70,000-80,000 deaths. In any case, no matter what you think of how a ground invasion would have gone (fun fact: one more Okinawa would have outdone the death tolls of both bombs), Japan surrendering a few days later was vital for preventing millions of people from dying of famine. 

 

 

I'll never believe that dropping the bombs on Japan was okay, nor do I buy for a second that it was the lesser of two evils. The Pentagon fudged the projected casualties of an invasion to justify it to the public, but it was wrong. You have do shitty things in war, sometimes it's necessary, but I'll never concede that this was one of those cases.

These figures were actually accurate and based on trends in previous battles. They were classified and meant for other government officials involved in planning an invasion, so no shit they're supposed to be accurate. Additionally, at the time, the thought-process wasn't "do we drop the bomb, or do we invade"? It was "drop the bomb and THEN invade, then drop more bombs".  

 

To say that an invasion of Japan- or even just more of the regular blockade and firebombing- would result in less deaths than one 3-month battle on a 466 square mile island (0.3% the size of Japan itself, with 0.9% of the population) is idiotic.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nihlus,

And that justifies targeting the city center rather than an actual military base?

[JonSnow4President]

As far as the GE conventions go, and the "targeting of civilians was illegal" thing, the specific Geneva treaties that agreed to stop the targeting of civilians were signed in 1949, which I would suspect would make it the result of the consideration of the civilian lives lost by attacks by all parties to the war.  

 

Without having been alive at the time, this sounds very much like the retroactive application of hindsight and a more modern worldview to the judgment of those making decisions at the time.

[Nihlus]

Nihlus,

And that justifies targeting the city center rather than an actual military base?

There was little distinction between the two in Japan. And the bombs were "aimed" at the military and industrial areas. Why do you think the factories sustained the most damage? Why do you think uniformed soldiers were 20-30% of the deaths at Hiroshima despite being 10-15% of the population?

 

It also made a bigger display. Which is good. Whatever gets the enemy to surrender more quickly. No one wanted to repeat Berlin or Okinawa fifty times.