Your opinions on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Speedy Samurai]

Would you say that the attack on Pearl Harbor warranted our retaliation of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan?

It wasn't the attack on pearl harbour that brought about the dropping of the bombs. It was Japan's refusal to surrender when clearly beaten.

 

[superberkut]

As per what I said earlier: (of finishing my answer)

While the Americans were aware of such power earlier, there was no other way than to use it on human lives, given the circumstances of the war. After the event itself, the bombings were ugly but perhaps instrumental in saving Japan itseif. However, it is still unknown if the tradeoff between Japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen for civilians was really justifiable. I believe that it was; those mainly healthy young men could then help rebuild the population afterwards. The bombings was part of a tactic that was probably unnecessary to bring about the end of World War II in the Pacific theatre, but a very effective one, therefore the U.S. is not guilty, in my eyes, of any sort of foul deed that led to later rivalries. The presidents of the U.S. may have led to Vietnam, however.

 

[Danoff]

So, you think the US was justified in dropping two atomic bombs. Do you also believe that the US would have been justified in dropping three atomic bombs? Or four? Or enough to wipe out all of the country of Japan? I'm curious to know if you would kindly quantify for us your statement; "It's important to consider how much of a retaliation to an injustice is warranted" in this particular case (i.e., the injustice of Pearl Harbor being attacked by Japan).

It depends on their motives - which are difficult to know. If they were trying to wipe us off the face of the earth, then yes, we'd be justified in wiping them off the face of the earth. If they'd been trying to invade us I think likewise. But I don't believe that was the case. They were trying to intimidate us, and I think retaliatory intimidation was warranted.

See... now there's a trick.

The question is not how many bombs you are justified in dropping... what Danoff is saying is that the unjustified act of starting a war against the US justifies any response.

Perhaps not any response, but certainly "a" response.

Trying to apply strict logic to "sentencing" is quite difficult if not impossible. It's straight forward to determine whether you're justified in taking defensive, punitive, or restraining action based on the origins of a particular conflict. It's much more difficult to determine exactly how much action is warranted. I'm not going to pretend that I can use strict reason to determine that a rapist deserves 45 years in prison but not 50 or 40.

I believe that action was warranted (based on reason), and I believe that the punishment was not disproportionate (based on wishy washy comparison).

For me, though, the intended and predictive end consequence must still be taken into account when justifying acts of war... otherwise, any response, even those destructive to those on the justified side, can be justified.

I'm not sure I understand this.

That's the problem. When you take morality as a whole, in any discussion about modern civilization, it is always influenced by culture and religion... and no, morality in this definition certainly does not have anything to do with justice. Which is why laws and the legal system evolve over time, to remove culture-biased ideas regarding morality from the law itself. But your personal definition of morality? That's something I can agree with, and something I try to follow, myself.

Well it totally depends on how you define morality as to whether it applies here. I define it very close to justice, which some people do not. If you do define it as being close to justice, you can apply it to determine whether we were justified in a major attack on Japan. If you define it as based on culture, etc, etc, then you can't really use it for that.

Which brings us to the complication of motive on the part of the war starter... but the justification for the severity of response has to take into account factors as to the results of the war itself. Say, if we were not to bomb the hell out of the aggressors and to leave their government intact with its ability to cause strife... would that lead to strife in the future? Or if we were to completely destroy that government, and that would cause anarchy that would spread to other countries... what should we do, otherwise? Not considering the end result is not a logical application of justice.

I think that the end result should be considered, but I don't think it can be used to justify action. Certainly you have to consider how severe your actions are going to be when "sentencing" your opponents.

See above on justification of response.

I'm still not getting it.

but Morality is often an interpretation of Justice influenced by culture. Which is why I frown upon censorship and "moral" policing and that damn political correctness crap... these are things that should be left to people to decide upon for themselves logically, instead of being forced upon them by others of a different moral system.

You can define the term "morality" that way if you like. I just think it renders the term somewhat less meaningful.

Which means he believes the greater the injustice, the greater the retaliation (which I think most people would agree with - the punishment should fit the crime). Which implies he now believes you can quantify an injustice and, therefore by extension, you can quantify justice.

Not really. I think you can determine whether an action was unjust (ie: whether it is just to retaliate/defend). But you correctly point out that the proportioning of that retaliation/defense is a tricky area.

This basically blows up his theory about justice being absolute.

I don't see that at all. Justice must be absolute (see Famine's example earlier). Just because ensuring that the response is proportionate is tricky doesn't change that fact whatsoever. The problem is as follows (this is also outlined in the truth/justice thread).

Individuals have rights. Once they violate the rights of others, they forfeit their own (to a degree). The fact that they violated rights is clear. The fact that they opened themselves up to retaliation is clear. The degree to which they open themselves to retaliation is less clear but can still be approached with reason. Nations are similar to individuals.

if I had the inclination, I could demonstrate that morality is also not an absolute.

Please do so in the truth/justice thread.

Because when his argument becomes indefensible, he offers to "clarify" his point by offering his own definition of the word/concept being discussed,

Please provide me with an example of this behavior.

or starts talking in effluent circles as he parrots Ayn Rand, which can be overwhelming to most participants. Google Ayn Rand and you'll discover "his" debates. Or Google "Ayn Rand on Truth, Justice and the American Way."

I don't deny or attempt to hide that I've been heavily influenced by Rand (avatar? catch phrase? signature?). And I think that strengthens my position rather than weakening it.

 

[Sureboss]

That doesn't make them less "innocent" than civillians. What would happen to a country with no soldiers at all? It's something that every country needs to avoid being taken over by another, period.
They're simply still considered acceptable, because you have to kill somebody, or it's not a war.

I didn't say countries didn't need soldiers.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

I didn't say countries didn't need soldiers.

But you seem to have the opinion that citizens are more valuble, or cannot be targets, in a war.

But many citizens join in war, when it reaches their home turf, As well as all the citizens who join the millitary.

For instance, the millitia of the revolutionary war. Or the civil war, or the iraqi war thingy (what are they calling it now?)

 

[Sureboss]

They aren't civilians/citizens when they start fighting, they become soldiers, tend to be called Freedom Fighters nowadays.

Citizens are innocent, soldiers aren't, but I'm not saying that a soldiers life isn't worth anything. All human life is valuable. My point is that a soldier agrees to fight and risk his life for his country, he agrees to kill the enemy, on the contrast he also takes the risk of himself being killed.

 

[Bram Turismo]

But BTW, nice thread. 👍

Well, I didn't expect it to become so big, that's for sure...

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

They aren't civilians/citizens when they start fighting, they become soldiers, tend to be called Freedom Fighters nowadays.

Citizens are innocent, soldiers aren't, but I'm not saying that a soldiers life isn't worth anything. All human life is valuable. My point is that a soldier agrees to fight and risk his life for his country, he agrees to kill the enemy, on the contrast he also takes the risk of himself being killed.

but if you were to nuke a city, with a population of, for instance, 2.5 million people, you would consider that 2.5 million innocent citizens. However, if you sent troops on the ground slowly battling across it, taking it over, surely not all 2.5

 

[Speedy Samurai]

but if you were to nuke a city, with a population of, for instance, 2.5 million people, you would consider that 2.5 million innocent citizens. However, if you sent troops on the ground slowly battling across it, taking it over, surely not all 2.5

True. But then you go from having zero (that's 0) casualties yourself, to having a lot more than zero.

 

[Sureboss]

but if you were to nuke a city, with a population of, for instance, 2.5 million people, you would consider that 2.5 million innocent citizens. However, if you sent troops on the ground slowly battling across it, taking it over, surely not all 2.5

My point had nothing to do with the morality of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, my point was that I don't believe that soldiers are innocent victims of war.



I've expressed my view on these bombings earlier in the thread, if you want to know them.

 

[Sniffs]

hmm...like another thread around here, this is slowly devolving into a rolling argument.

Danoff is the kind that just makes me shake my head and say "whatever". even I know when to quit when you get to an immovable opinion.

my view on this is: America was p(bleep) and stayed that way. we ended up taking it out on the obviously foreign-looking people. also, I believe America was still in it's own "imperialisim" phase, and is finally backing out of it.

I think it took WW2 to straighten Europe out and make them realize "we're too old for this, now". attempting to "grind them under our heel" didn't help either; look what happened when France tried that on Imperial Germany. (ww1/great war)

I think it takes a culture or country or whatever getting it's @$$ handed to it to straighten up. america has only had a partial "handling" so far, Vietnam

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

My point had nothing to do with the morality of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, my point was that I don't believe that soldiers are innocent victims of war.



I've expressed my view on these bombings earlier in the thread, if you want to know them.

I understand this.
My point, however, is that citizens are no more innocent than soldiers. The only innocent victims in war are the helpless. As in children, and handicapped people, etc.

hmm...like another thread around here, this is slowly devolving into a rolling argument.

Danoff is the kind that just makes me shake my head and say "whatever". even I know when to quit when you get to an immovable opinion.

my view on this is: America was p(bleep) and stayed that way. we ended up taking it out on the obviously foreign-looking people. also, I believe America was still in it's own "imperialisim" phase, and is finally backing out of it.

I think it took WW2 to straighten Europe out and make them realize "we're too old for this, now". attempting to "grind them under our heel" didn't help either; look what happened when France tried that on Imperial Germany. (ww1/great war)

I think it takes a culture or country or whatever getting it's @$$ handed to it to straighten up. america has only had a partial "handling" so far, Vietnam

Americans have had a big head for a long time, I think it started around 1776, and hasn't done much to improve, same as many other countries of power in history. It's only in the past few years, (this is not directed to any specific individuals) it seems to have become "cool" among self-proclaimed "Intellects" that America could be destroyed by one or two inside jobs on "important" targets.

 

[niky]

I'm still not getting it.

Well... simply, in terms of war, I believe that yes, the "punishment" should fit the "crime", but you have to consider how much the "punishment" will affect the innocent. Collateral Damage and repercussions from the event, so to speak.

You can define the term "morality" that way if you like. I just think it renders the term somewhat less meaningful.

Well... I guess we have to agree to disagree. Like I said, I like your definition of morality better on a personal level, but the cultural definition of morality is what I see applied by others in the real world, and thus, I cannot ignore it, completely. Basically, I agree that morality should be objective and based on rational arguments, but in the real world, it is often not. Which is sad, really.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

It's rather simple to call something immoral when you are not associated with it. As the Americans did regarding Japan's bombing of civilians in Chinese cities during the Sino Japanese war. A number of years later, and America became involved with japan, and bombed its cities killing civilians.

War makes immoral things necessary sometimes.

 

[ERacer]

I've been quiet for some time now. Having some quiet time to reflect is usually a good thing for me. I recently had something bad happen to me which completely enraged me. Looking back at my latest posts in this forum, I now realize I have vented my anger towards a few innocent people here, in particular Danoff.

So, to Danoff, please accept my sincere apologies for replying to your posts so recklessly, maliciously and so angrily. I deeply regret venting my personal angst on you in such a way. I respect your opinions and enjoy the subject matter which your posts typify and all the ensuing replies and discussions. They have been enlightening to say the least.

Sincerely,

ERacer

 

[Danoff]

I've been quiet for some time now. Having some quiet time to reflect is usually a good thing for me. I recently had something bad happen to me which completely enraged me. Looking back at my latest posts in this forum, I now realize I have vented my anger towards a few innocent people here, in particular Danoff.

So, to Danoff, please accept my sincere apologies for replying to your posts so recklessly, maliciously and so angrily. I deeply regret venting my personal angst on you in such a way. I respect your opinions and enjoy the subject matter which your posts typify and all the ensuing replies and discussions. They have been enlightening to say the least.

Sincerely,

ERacer

It happens to the best of us. Especially in the opinions forum where emotions tend to run a little hot. I know I've done it to others, and have been called some nasty names by members that I eventually became quite friendly with. Think nothing of it.

 

[ERacer]

 

[Joel]

Bumping this thread.


We've been discussing this in my Grade 10 (Canadian and World) history class, and whether or not it was justified.


I said it was justified and my argument basically boiled down to two possibilities that the US could have used.

1. Invasion with projected 7 figure Japanese and American casualties, possibly 6 figure British casualties, 6 or 7 figure Russian casualties, possibly 5 figure Canadian casualties, the list goes on.

2. Bang, 6 figure Japanese casualties, and 0 (zip, zero, nada) American, British, Russian, Canadian, etc. casualties.


Which one is more "moral"?

 

[McLaren]

I don't think "moral" is the right word.

Personally, it seems that between the 2, it was which would leave the Allies with the least casualties on the attack & the bombings just happened to point to none.

 

[Joel]

I don't think "moral" is the right word.

Personally, it seems that between the 2, it was which would leave the Allies with the least casualties on the attack & the bombings just happened to point to none.

I put it in the quotations for that reason. Because most opposition to the bombs comes from saying it's "immoral" or a "crime against humanity".

The other point I could add in there, is imagine how many lives were saved by having that be the first nuclear test, and not Russia launching a nuke from Cuba, or vice versa?

 

[Ardius]

With hindsight, you could also say that using the bombs had the positive effect of making us realise the terrible cost such weapons have and perhaps dissuade future weapons.
It was also an inevitability that someone would use such a weapon, sadly we learn from mistakes more than anything else (not that I'm suggesting the bombings were a "mistake", more that someone had to use atomic weapons before we realised the terrible costs).

As for your question, well, of course you are going to phrase the question in a way that displays the actual outcome more positively. If you were on the opposite side at the time, I don't think you would see it quite the same way , i.e. you are focusing on the benefit to the Allies.
Personally I don't think we can second-guess what the Japanese would have done otherwise, there were many factors and not just the atomic bombs which led to the surrender of Japan. There were already movements towards peaceful resolutions to the war at the time and it may have been that it wouldn't have taken much longer for Japan to surrender either way. Its always assumed that Japan would never accept surrender other than through the atom bombs but I think even they would have eventually crumbled under such a clear defeat. I don't think its so clear cut as some historians like to paint it anyway.

 

[Danoff]

I said it was justified and my argument basically boiled down to two possibilities that the US could have used.

1. Invasion with projected 7 figure Japanese and American casualties, possibly 6 figure British casualties, 6 or 7 figure Russian casualties, possibly 5 figure Canadian casualties, the list goes on.

2. Bang, 6 figure Japanese casualties, and 0 (zip, zero, nada) American, British, Russian, Canadian, etc. casualties.


Which one is more "moral"?

Neither.

Morality is not determined by outcome. The ends do not justify the means. The beginnings justify the means. You cannot list outcomes and determine morality. I'll give you an example.

Scenario 1 - 7 people die
Scenario 2 - 1 person dies

Which one is more moral?

The answer is scenario 1 in this case, because the 7 people were members of a gang who had randomly attacked a cop. The cop either had the option of using deadly force to defend himself against his 7 attackers, or be killed.

Hopefully now you understand why you can't simply list the outcome and try to determine morality. Whether we were justified in our response has everything to do with what was done to us and why and almost nothing to do with statistics.

 

[NotThePrez]

We were talking about WWII in my World History Class, and I took a Survey of WWII class during the first semester this year, and this is what I was able to gather from it:

Had we not used the A-bomb, it was estimated that around 1 million U.S. soliders would've died if we had invaded Japan itself because the code of the Imperial Army was to fight until the death. Also, we had begun development of the A-bomb with The Manhattan Project in I believe 1943, so think what would've happened if we had the bomb yet decided to invade Japan. Everyone would've hated Truman for it.

Not only that, but at the time, apparently the Third Reich was also experimenting with nuclear energy. Had they made a nuke, I don't think a nuclear attack on the U.S. would be out of question. Also, after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think Japan either thought we had a third bomb or we bluffed and told them that we did.

I like to learn about WWII, but I know very little about it. The facts and issues at the time probably go a little deeper than I know. But I do know that there's rarely a happy ending in war. The worst thing I think of it is that after WWII, other countries became interested in nuclear technology(enter The Cold War). However, if I was President at the time, and I had the choice of either invading Japan at the risk of 1 million U.S. lives or ending things quickly with an extremely volatile weapon, I would more than consider using the A-bomb. Thank God I wasn't, I probably would've passed out from the stress.

 

[Northstar]

Also, after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think Japan either thought we had a third bomb or we bluffed and told them that we did.
.

Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union declared war a couple days after the A-Bomb's dropped. These two things combined basically forced Japan to surrender.

We did have plans to drop 4 more A-bomb's over Japan, they surrendered though so they were either disarmed or never got started.

 

[Joel]

Neither.

Morality is not determined by outcome. The ends do not justify the means. The beginnings justify the means. You cannot list outcomes and determine morality. I'll give you an example.

Scenario 1 - 7 people die
Scenario 2 - 1 person dies

Which one is more moral?

The answer is scenario 1 in this case, because the 7 people were members of a gang who had randomly attacked a cop. The cop either had the option of using deadly force to defend himself against his 7 attackers, or be killed.

Hopefully now you understand why you can't simply list the outcome and try to determine morality. Whether we were justified in our response has everything to do with what was done to us and why and almost nothing to do with statistics.

I do remember you saying that you support the bombing, but what is your reasoning (out of curiosity)?

I think for "beginnings", Pearl Harbour was a completely unprovoked attack, and the Japanese were committed to no surrender, and fighting to the last man.

 

[Danoff]

I do remember you saying that you support the bombing, but what is your reasoning (out of curiosity)?

I think for "beginnings", Pearl Harbour was a completely unprovoked attack, and the Japanese were committed to no surrender, and fighting to the last man.

That sounds like a much better justification. 👍

 

[Invictus321]

Here's an idea: the Americans could have told Japan they had the bomb, and that they should surrender or be obliterated.

If they think its a bluff, drop the bomb on an empty area of sea near the Japanese navy or something, so they can see the power of the bomb. Not on a densely populated city.

They would surely surrender after that.

That way the outcome is Zero deaths for everybody, except maybe some fish.

Failing that, drop the bomb on an airbase or something military, not a city of civilians, i never got why they did that.

 

[GTsail]

That sounds like a much better justification. 👍

I'm afraid that I have to disagree.

Using the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as justification for bombing two cities in Japan almost 4 years later is a terrible justification.

I think I remember this quote of yours:

*snip*

It's important to consider how much of a retaliation to an injustice is warranted.

*snip*

It was the Japanese Navy that attacked Pearl Harbor, not the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And it was my understanding of history (such as it is), that the Japanese Navy was specifically targeting the US Navy at Pearl and not trying to bomb civilians. The Japanese Navy was specifically after the battleships and the aircraft carriers that were normally stationed there.

And if I recall correctly, the purpose of this attack on the Navy was to destroy enough ships so that the US Navy could not interfear with various territorial expansion plans underway in the Pacific theatre.

I think that the justification for bombing Hiroshima occurred at a much later date and can not be directly linked to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The "moral" response to having one's Navy attacked is to return the favor and attack the other side's Navy or any other military assets.

I would suggest that it would have been immoral for the United States to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a direct response to Pearl Harbor, but it would not necessarily be immoral to bomb Hiroshima as a response to the rest of the war and its possible end-game.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[mafia_boy]

Don't forget guys in the US that we over in Australia had several major battles with the Japanese in WW2 as we were allies of the US, even way back then!!

The first was like Pearl Harbour, a completely unprovoked attack on our city of Darwin in early 1942. Then not much after that, three midget subs snuck into Sydney Harbour, launched an attack on Australian and US ships and tried to get away, they never did.

This, plus the battles from Borneo, to Papua New Guinea (search Kokoda Track/Kokoda Trail for info!) to prevent the Japanese from invading Australia which we successfully did in 1943 and started pushing them back where they started from.

Here's a lot of info about our side of the fight against the Japanese.

http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/
http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/ww2main.html

Plus wikipedia's take of it all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_campaign - Info on the battle of Kokoda.

Hope this all helps give you more of a perspective of what was going on away from American shores.

 

[Danoff]

The "moral" response to having one's Navy attacked is to return the favor and attack the other side's Navy or any other military assets.

If someone breaks into your house and shoots your foot, are you limited to shooting theirs in defense? No. Retaliation can be justifiably larger than the crime itself. How much larger is tricky, but larger - in defense - can be completely justified.

I would suggest that it would have been immoral for the United States to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a direct response to Pearl Harbor, but it would not necessarily be immoral to bomb Hiroshima as a response to the rest of the war and its possible end-game.

Not the end-game. You can't justify your actions on the outcome, it's not possible. When a hostile nation attacks you on your soil, it is an attack on your citizens as well. You have to consider it an invasion. You have to assume that they want your country - regardless of what they tell you.

This is like an armed robber breaking into your house and telling you that he only wants your TV while he has a gun pointed at your head. You have to assume that he's not telling you the whole truth, and you are most certainly justified in shooting him. He is threatening your life, and you can respond by taking his.

Japan threatened our sovereignty. We were justified in not only in winning the war, but in making them the 51st state.