Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you even realize what you're saying? Would you personally impale an innocent child with a bayonet, or torture that child in some other monstrous way, if, by so doing, you could save ten others? If so, you are essentially telling me that there is NOTHING you wouldn't do, there is no evil you would not commit, in order to bring about some "greater good". If you can't see the moral poverty of such a position, you're completely lost.
You are painting yourself into a corner of moral abiguity, and the question thus can be thrown back at you - would you rather have 10 innocent children dead because of battle, desease, or starvation (i.e. - a year long invasion campaign, or a muti year embargo to starve them to death, plus deaths occuring in Japanese occupied areas), or one children dead (because of the bombing).
It's easy to play monday morning quaterback, but such were the decisions faced by the leaders at the time. The easy decision would be to do nothing, while the bodies keep piling up - both innocent and combatants.
I disagree with that. War itself is uncivilized, we can all agree. The concept of total war makes all citizens of the country combatants, and, if anything, the Japanese of that time were taking that concept literally. Literally every resource, every man, woman, and, yes, child was used to assist the war effort - in producting the tools of war.
First, war can certainly be waged in a civilized manner. To say that "war itself is uncivilized" is a way of morally excusing any and all atrocities that might be committed in the name winning a war.
Second, "total war" is a means of responding to other circumstances - it's a choice, not a condition.
Third, your most compelling argument is your last sentence, wherein it is is claimed that every man, woman, and child is mobilized to assist the war effort. That may be the case in an extremely limited sense. Certainly, during WW-II, American civilians at home were behind the war effort and doing whatever they could. But still, they are not so easily classified as combatants and legitimate targets for killing. Young children, in the first place, are not capable of doing much, nor are the women who care for them. By and large the women, children, sick, disabled and elderly left at home are consumed with mere survival. Are they working in munitions factories? Some of them, certainly. Bomb the munitions factories. But as a rule the non-combatants of a warring country are both the least menacing and the most vulnerable, and whatever threat they pose will evaporate when their armies are defeated.
You are painting yourself into a corner of moral abiguity, and the question thus can be thrown back at you - would you rather have 10 innocent children dead because of battle, desease, or starvation (i.e. - a year long invasion campaign, or a muti year embargo to starve them to death, plus deaths occuring in Japanese occupied areas), or one children dead (because of the bombing).
There is no moral ambiguity. You are conveniently omitting the question of moral agency. Of course I would rather ten innocent children die inadvertently due to disease, starvation, etc. than to deliberately kill one innocent child myself. That's a no-brainer. If killing innocent children on purpose in order to achieve a greater good is seen as a moral option, the result is that we become as degraded and depraved as the enemy - a country not worth defending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
It's easy to play monday morning quaterback, but such were the decisions faced by the leaders at the time.
Actually, I'm quite forgiving of moral errors made in the heat of battle. Some of the mistakes made in Vietnam are illustrative. I can't guarantee that I would have reacted differently. But the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan does not fall into that category.
the soviet union could not be allowed to have any say on japan. sovunion was the most evil country ever, the US was right to end the war quickly and make sure pro american govt was set up in japan. if the sovunion had been allowed into japan japan would look like korea and korea would be all commie. its highly unfortunate soviet troops were able to get into manchuria and help the CCP with weapons and such. the world would be a lot different today if this had been avoided. communism making its way into asia killed tens of millions of people.
First, war can certainly be waged in a civilized manner. To say that "war itself is uncivilized" is a way of morally excusing any and all atrocities that might be committed in the name winning a war.
Explain to me how one wages a civilized war. It sounds nice, but even in the instance of set piece battles ala the Renaissance era, there is little civility occurring.
Quote:
Second, "total war" is a means of responding to other circumstances - it's a choice, not a condition.
What is ones choice in terms of whether or not to engage in "total war" when the other side is the one who first engages?
Quote:
Third, your most compelling argument is your last sentence, wherein it is is claimed that every man, woman, and child is mobilized to assist the war effort. That may be the case in an extremely limited sense. Certainly, during WW-II, American civilians at home were behind the war effort and doing whatever they could. But still, they are not so easily classified as combatants and legitimate targets for killing. Young children, in the first place, are not capable of doing much, nor are the women who care for them. By and large the women, children, sick, disabled and elderly left at home are consumed with mere survival. Are they working in munitions factories? Some of them, certainly. Bomb the munitions factories. But as a rule the non-combatants of a warring country are both the least menacing and the most vulnerable, and whatever threat they pose will evaporate when their armies are defeated.
When ones opponent chooses to make the civilian population combatants then your argument goes out the window. In the case of Nazi Germany we have the Volkssturm composed of men too old to bear arms in the regular service and boys, sometimes as young as 10 or 12. Is shooting a 10 year old who bears arms against you a morally reprehensible act, or does the moral offense lie in the nation that would so arm and send a 10 year old off to fight its enemies?
In the case of Japan, they organized something known as the "Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps" aka Volunteer Fighting Corps. School attendance was suspended and teenaged boys and girls along with women were given combat training in the use of spears and grenades. These formations were engaged in battle at Okinawa and le Shima where their ranks were decimated completely by machine gun fire. The Japanese estimated the abiltiy to raise 28 million female soldiers to serve in these units and over 2 million were enlisted in the home islands (just counting females, not teenaged males) before the surrender. I'll ask again, what is morally reprehensible; killing a young woman or boy who is attacking you, or is the reprehensible act committed by the people who would arm and send the same into battle?
When a nation chooses to engage in "total war" to the point of sending off their women and children to fight, how is a nation supposed to respond, if not by engaging in "total war" themselves?
Then we have the case of which nations lives are worth preserving. The President of the United States swears an oath to defend the nation. That oath includes preserving American lives. If you are the President and you have the choice of saving one American soldiers life by dropping a bomb, but that bomb will kill ten innocent civilians from the nation you are at war with, do you drop the bomb? To whom does your moral obligation reside? Preservation of the life you swore to protect or to the innocent civilians?
Take it into the reality of the decision to drop the atomic bomb. An invasion would cost 1 million American lives and upwards of 10 million Japanese. The alternative was to enforce a total blockade and plunge the island into total starvation. The estimated dead are in the 1-4+ million range depending on the duration with the toll falling most heavily on the young and old that were already virtually on starvation rations. The bombings killed 105,000 and injured an additional 94,000. You want to deal in the moral absolute of the decision, that it was wrong regardless, but moral absolutes are not how the world works.
We had an enemy that engaged in incredibly non-civilized warfare. They had long been committed to a "total war" where they would rather perish to the last then surrender. They were more then willing to engage in suicide attacks and arm young boys and women with bamboo spears and grenades and send them against professional soldiers. Conventional means for ending the conflict would have ended in large scale casualties. The bombs had the opportunity to drastically limit the casulaties involved in the "end game" of the war. What would you have done differently Mr. President?
There is no moral ambiguity. You are conveniently omitting the question of moral agency. Of course I would rather ten innocent children die inadvertently due to disease, starvation, etc. than to deliberately kill one innocent child myself. That's a no-brainer. If killing innocent children on purpose in order to achieve a greater good is seen as a moral option, the result is that we become as degraded and depraved as the enemy - a country not worth defending.
Actually, I'm quite forgiving of moral errors made in the heat of battle. Some of the mistakes made in Vietnam are illustrative. I can't guarantee that I would have reacted differently. But the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan does not fall into that category.
Moral agency is exactly what I am talking about, thank you. A decision using all the known factors at the time, including morality, resulted in the deaths of innocents and saved many more innocents. Lets not forget that INDECISION, the easy choice, the lazy choice, the morally ambigous choice, also results in death. That is also a moral choice. Those the refuse to take action are not morally excused by any means. They have blood on their hands.
Historically, these were the options in used the atomic bomb in the war in 1945, along with expected casualty figures. These can be arguably supported even today:
1.) Option one - Drop atomic bomb in 1945. Casualties - approx 200,000
2.) Option two - No atomic bomb dropped. Invasion of Japanese mainland, Operation Downfall, occurs in 1946. Casualties - 1 to 4 million allied casualties, including over 250,000 American fatalities. Japanes casualties as high as 20 million.
3.) Option three - No action - Almost inconceivable option at the time. Casualties - Casualty rates would have to consider military actions still occuring in China and other parts of Asia, civilians attrocities and crmies against POW's, and civilian deaths in Japan and occupied areas due to starvation and deseise. As has been indicated, Chinese were being executed as about 1 million lives a year. You do the math. I have no doubt a continuing "stalled" war was causing at least 100,000 fatalities a month in the pacific theater due to all war related factors.
My father was in the Army and slated to be in the invasion of the Japanese home islands. Based on the Japanese army archives and a host of other sources, there was simply no credible evidence that the Japanese were going to surrender.
Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.
Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.
Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945
JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO
Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.
Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.
Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945
JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO
Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
It is true that the Japanese were sending out peace feelers to begin negotiations, but these feelers were coming from a minority group within the Japanese government. It was the civilian, not the military government, that was making the openings for peace talks. The position of the emperor were also unknown. Basically, while the overtures were there it was hard to take them seriously given who was putting the feelers out there. It's not as if the Japanese government called up Washington and said they wanted to negotiate. Knowing what was going on in Japan at the time and how close the military came to overthrowing the emperor anyway after the bombings, I think early peace was a dream.
Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.
Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.
Chicago Tribune, August 19,1945
JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO
Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals
Noooo, not this again. Japan was divided, some Japanes envoys were telling the Soviet Union they wanted peace while it's military was preparing for the defense of mainland japan. Russia in turn was trying to exploit this to the best of their ability. Japan wanted it's government intact, its war criminals treated like heros, heck they want to keep parts of China occupied so they could keep killing Chinese in peace. It was unrealistic. Certainly some Japanese envoys knew the war was lost, but they had no power. The warlords did.
Regardless, this article is totally dismissed as a result of Japan's official undisputed response to the Allies Potsdam decleration to Japan wich was very clear in July 1945 - unconditional surrendor. The Japanese official response was - mokusatsu. Look up what it means. No, actually, I will help you - it means "kill with silence". A sign of contempt.
Japan would not even surrendor after one atomic bomb dropped and the impact of an unimaginable terrible weapon was reality, and the military even after that was threatening to entirely overthrow the government and fight on. We (or they) are actually lucky they surrendored after two bombs, the war council was split. What does that tell you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
