Hiroshima: 62 years ago today
posted at 4:47 pm on August 6, 2007 by Bryan
I’ve stood at ground zero in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and looked up at that famous hollowed out dome in the cover shot. Both sites are “peace parks” today, with nearby museums dedicated to memorializing the bombings. Of the two, Hiroshima’s is by far the better, in that includes the entire context of the pre-war period, the war, the bombings and some of the aftermath. Nagasaki’s begins and ends with the bomb, or at least it did when I visited circa 1995 or ’96. It feels incomplete, because without the war’s context it is.
I won’t re-write pieces I’ve written before about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first of which occurred on Aug 6, 1945. I’ll just send you to my old blog for a few posts if you’re interested in reading them.
Here’s the first, in which I lay out the moral case at stake in obliterating Hiroshima. The second takes a look at revisionist history, or history distorted by time and the arrogance of pretend omniscience. The third recounts the remarkable perspective of a woman who lived through the bombing of Hiroshima.
My take on the bombings is that ending the war as we did saved tens if not hundreds of thousands of American lives, millions of Japanese lives — and Japan itself.
Update: This will be the last thing I say on the subject for a while, and it’ll be brief. It would do some people a great deal of good to imagine themselves in Truman’s place in 1945. The invasion of Okinawa had just concluded, bloodily. The Japanese had proven that they would fight for every inch of ground, and the closer your troops get to Tokyo, the harder they fight. They gave up 21,000 for a useless rock called Iwo Jima, and would give up many, many more for Kyushu, a much larger mountainous island that is well suited to sustaining years of guerrilla warfare. Meanwhile, you have the USSR, which you have never trusted, just now getting around to declaring war on Japan and obviously eying Hokkaido. They might wait for you to invade Kyushu, get bogged down in the meat grinder that the Japanese have planned for your troops, and then they waltz into a largely undefended northern Japan and seize it. They’ll have to fight the civilians, but there’s not much military standing in their way as there is in yours. Hokkaido and the top half of Honshu might become North Japan, a Soviet satellite. It depends on how fast you can slaughter the Japanese forces in the south, and how many of the civilians you end up having to fight as well.
Now, you’re Truman. This isn’t a video game. You have about 1,000,000 men set to invade a country in which every citizen, down to the children, has been taught to fight and kill your men. You lead a country that is tired of the war. You have an “ally” that is already dismembering Germany and might do the same to Japan if you let him. You don’t have any love for the Japanese, but the strategic map is already changing with Germany defeated, and it’s looking like the USSR is your next headache after this immediate and very bloody headache called Japan. You need to end this headache as quickly as possible. You have a huge force of tired veterans ready to fight, but you also have two bombs that might prevent that fight. Using them might prevent the USSR’s move into northern Japan. Using them might force the Japanese to surrender quickly and let you occupy it while you figure out what to do about Stalin. Using them changes the post-war balance of power radically in your favor, instead of seeing you bogged down chasing a guerrilla army while the Soviets consolidate their gains in Europe and Asia. You’ll destroy a couple of cities, but you’ve been doing that since Dresden and you’ve repeatedly firebombed Tokyo and pounded Shizuoka and other strategic enemy cities, but in this case you might save many, many more than die in the blasts that you order. If you order them.
Put yourself in Truman’s place. What do you do?
When you have no good options, and Truman had no good options, you take the least bad option. I think that’s what he did.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 5 Next »
If the atom bomb was the more humane choice instead of ground invasion, well what does that say about humankind? Even though the current interpretation of the events at Hiroshima is far off, I still feel no love towards those that were in charge of the Manhattan Project.
mram on August 6, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Thanks, Brian. I appreciate your thoughtful posts.
Simple analysis – Humankind is capable of terrible things, and blind optimism about the goodness of man is probably foolish.
Honestly, what’s your analysis on how the US should have proceeded? It’s easy to say that you don’t like the route we took if you don’t deal with the facts that the US was dealing with at the time regarding a potential invasion of Japan…
marc@hubsandspokes on August 6, 2007 at 4:56 PM
If it were not for the A bombing of Japan, as my dad was about to leave German to get on a ship to go to Japan, I might well not be here today to annoy people on this blog! That alone makes it the right thing to have done!
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Ah yes, but I am afraid I do not agree with an “ends justify the means” philosophy. I think this “utilitarian” tendency is far too rampant in wartime. I am sure I will be in the minority at this site, but I cannot wrap my head around the slaughtering of so many innocent civilians. Why did Truman find it necessary to drop the second bomb? Why not drop it on a military target or display its power elsewhere (i.e. not on civilians)? I’m sure there are reasonable answers to these questions, but I’m afraid I’m with Elizabeth Anscombe on this one: http://www.anthonyflood.com/anscombetrumansdegree.htm
(scroll down a bit to the distinguished philospher’s article).
Will
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Little trivia about that museum in Hiroshima: the English language texts and the Japanese language texts on the displays inside are not the same, i.e. they do not say the same thing just in different languages. The English texts tend to be neutral and distanced whereas the Japanese texts are much more quasi-nationalistic, Japan-as-victim stuff. As they say these days, the museums lack historical context.
Thomas the Wraith on August 6, 2007 at 4:59 PM
If the atom bomb was the more humane choice instead of ground invasion, well what does that say about humankind?
mram on August 6, 2007 at 4:50 PM
It doesn’t say much about humankind, it says much about the Japankind of the time.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 4:59 PM
American lives, millions of Japanese lives — and Japan itself.
Brian – the above quote says it all. Revisionists be damned. Ask some of those that were part of the greatest generation and how they considered the possibility of invading Japan in 1945.
I fear that the next “device,” as some predict, will be against us.
Wake up America!
lib_not on August 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Read E.B. Slege’s With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa
and you won’t have any doubts that Truman made the right call.
tmitsss on August 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Thanks for the links, it’s nice to get perspective from people who have actually been to the sites.
NeoConNews on August 6, 2007 at 5:04 PM
And here we are a week ago and Obama is taking the nuclear option off the table. It is the fact that we have already used the bomb, TWICE, that gives our enemies cause to reflect and Obama throws that out the window.
csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Why not drop it on a military target or display its power elsewhere?
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Because there were only two bombs ready to go and a demo would likely not have had enough effect for the Japs to surrender. Even the Hiroshima bomb was not enough to get them to surrender. Truman did not want hundreds of thousands of dead American troops on his conscious. He probably also did not want the American people storming the White House if they found out that he could have ended the war and instead choose to sacrifice so many American lives.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Funny how revisionist history doesn’t include the more recent declassification of radio intelligence material.
Karl on August 6, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Couldn’t agree with you more. Amazing how anti-war activists in the last few decades haven’t figure out one simple concept:
Defeating an enemy quickly, decisively, and memorably in war, makes your enemy no longer want war. Then, there is peace.
I’m honestly very glad to hear that Americans are so warmly welcomed in Japan. I’ve been wanting to go all my life, since my father was stationed in Okinawa for two years. This makes me feel much better about planning a trip. Rare to hear of a country that likes us anymore.
MadisonConservative on August 6, 2007 at 5:10 PM
The revisionists conveniently omit the fact that the Japanese were frantically working on their own bomb.
Mike Honcho on August 6, 2007 at 5:12 PM
It says that some in humankind will do anything to end war as quickly as possible, to spare further loss of life.
MadisonConservative on August 6, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.
Mike Honcho on August 6, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Still doesn’t change the fact that slaughtering innocent civilians en masse is murder…Sorry.
I guess we’ll agree to disagree…
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Osama bin-Laden would not doubt say the same thing about the World Trade Center.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Based on Iwo Jima’s astronomically high casualties, I would have made the same decision if I were in Truman’s shoes.
And given their fanatical devotion to the Emperor, Japan’s civilians certainly would have entered the fray in response to a ground invasion.
The bomb saved American lives. Compared against military estimates, it probably saved Japanese lives too.
John from OPFOR on August 6, 2007 at 5:15 PM
If you think Hiroshima was deadly, compare it to the fire bombing of Tokyo.
After 2 hours of bombardment, Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called ‘air-raid turbans’ around their heads, and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. This was the worst disaster for Tokyo since the 1923 earthquake. The death toll was at least 80,000, and perhaps exceeded 100,000.[4] This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and the firebombing of Dresden.
(lifted from wikipedia)
TheSitRep on August 6, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Still doesn’t change the fact that slaughtering innocent civilians en masse is murder…Sorry.…
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:13 PM
You have just caused a lot of now gone WWII American troops to roll over in their graves.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 5:16 PM
You should worship the ground they walked on. Without them you might not even be here today. Not only did they end WWII which saved millions, but, up to today, they prevented WWIII which could have made WWII look like a skirmish. Furthermore, since the science behind the bomb was widely known (we feared the Germans were close at the time) another country would have most certainly developed the bomb on their own at some point and used them on us without mercy.
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 5:16 PM
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Those scenarios were discussed and rejected for various reasons. You see, back then, we fought wars to win, we weren’t too concerned with the “feewings” of our enemies. We had one goal – WIN. And win we did. Big time. The second bomb was dropped because the Japanese didn’t think we had but one bomb, and Truman wanted to make it very clear that we would do what we said. It drove the point home loud and clear, and they surrendered very shortly afterward.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Except that we weren’t putting videos on the internet of our troops brutally beheading Japanese civilians while crying religious praises.
Get the picture? No, of course you don’t. If you could be so absolutely deluded as to compare the two, you are out of your damn mind.
MadisonConservative on August 6, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Murder huh?…ask the Chinese and Filipinos and countless others about murder when it came to the Japanese in WW2.
EnochCain on August 6, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Osama bin-Laden would not doubt say the same thing about the World Trade Center.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Praise Truman.
F$$k Osama bin-Laden.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 5:19 PM
John from OPFOR on August 6, 2007 at 5:15 PM
From what I understand, it saved tens if not hundreds of thousands of US lives, and millions of Japanese lives. And it shortened the war, considerably.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 5:19 PM
EnochCain on August 6, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Ditto the Koreans. Big time.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Slaughtering innocent civilians en masse, eh? Okay Eisenhower, what strategy would you have pursued?
I guess since you oppose “slaughtering innocent civilians en masse” you would have also opposed the decision to bomb German and Japanese cities with incendiary devices? Cities like Dresden and Tokyo were completely destroyed under such bombardments. Hundreds of thousands perished.
Yet this strategic bombing was integral to degrading the Axis’ industrial and transportation capabilities and ending the war.
Mike Honcho on August 6, 2007 at 5:21 PM
That’s the one that made them surrender.
Pablo on August 6, 2007 at 5:21 PM
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 4:58 PM
You remind me of the old saw about those who forget the past.
These days, people aren’t taught history, so I understand how you wouldn’t know any of this stuff.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I would like to remind you that during the Battle of Saipan:
If the civies didn’t fight to the death, our landing forces would’ve come in contact with Jap Biological WMD. Fantastic you would’ve had my grandpa jump into Japan with the 17th Airborne before you would’ve used the other option.
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Your disagreement then is with war in general. In war civilians die. The A-bombs we used were of a force and magnitude not seen before, but the principle was long in effect in WWII beginning with the bombing of London and later strategic bombing – Dresden etc.
I agree with Byran. And would add that war is hell, no need trying to put lipstick on it.
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 5:23 PM
You should see what the Japanese did to Chinese civilians in Manchuria. Made the Nazis look like schoolchildren.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Eh, you are all just a bunch of moral relativists…hate to break it to you….Killing innocent civilians for the sake of killing innocent civilians is always wrong. I do not make this argument to denegrate the brave service of WWII soldiers, I just merely state what I view as right and what I view is wrong. I find that there is a disturbing trend on the right to justify any action as long as it defeats our enemies….This is an immoral way of thinking. Murder is murder is murder. Sorry if that offends you (not really)!
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:26 PM
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:26 PM
You are simply clueless.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 5:27 PM
I would strongly urge you to read the writing by Anscombe I provided in my first post (it is down a little ways on the site). I am by no means opposed to war in general: I am opposed to unjust actions in war.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:28 PM
I’ll always remember what my grand father said as he was a sea bee in the pacific during ww2. He was animate we should have dropped 10 bombs on Japan. I guess after years of fighting them and seeing the atrocities they committed he had little to no love for the enemy. I am sure the moonbats and the leftist granola eating peace nicks will bemoan this day as a day of pure evil on the Americans part , But I say Japan had no one to blame but themselves for the bombs being used , if it save 1 American life it well worth it .
And pay back use to be a bitch, the
Bataan
death march more then justified this action.
Mojack420 on August 6, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Yeaaaah. So what? He’d be wrong.
We could’ve, and would’ve, killed way more civilians with conventional bombs trying to invade. So if your metric is: “Does it kill civilians?” then you’re STILL wrong.
See you’re going about this the wrong way. You’re wrong –so in order to be right, you gotta start twisting facts and throwing out non-sequitors.
“Chewbacca lives on Endor! This makes no sense, and neither did targeting civilians with the atom bombs!”
apollyonbob on August 6, 2007 at 5:29 PM
So Japanese murdering PoWs when the invasion started is ok as long as the US didn’t drop the A-bomb?
Frak you.
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Yes, and again I am sure the Japanese during WW2 would have been open to your way of thinking. I am sure they would have been ready to sit down and discuss it in a civil manner.
EnochCain on August 6, 2007 at 5:30 PM
There ya go
TBinSTL on August 6, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Yes, they were brutal. But to make the Germans look like schoolchildren? Did they make lampshades out of human skin?
Part of the problem with Barrett and his intellectual ilk is if you take force on the table, and yes sometimes that means you discomfort those that support the war along with those that fight it, then you are forced to overlook those things.
In this case the action was taken to save lives. And it did. Saved lives on both sides of the war, you would think they would accept that as the morally correct action.
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Thanks for the reminder, Bryan, especially the part about what was at stake. My father served on CV3, the USS Saratoga, as a replacement for a man who died in a kamikazi attack earlier in the war. Count me as another one of your readers who probably wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t used the A-bomb when we did.
bdfaith on August 6, 2007 at 5:32 PM
That’s the dumbest comment I’ve seen in months.
So in your feeble uneducated mind, Osama’s pre-emptive action prevented millions of Muslims from being killed? What kind of history are they teaching in our schools these days? Did anyone ever mention to you that the Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child? They were willing to have millions of their own killed while they went about trying to kill miliions of Americans. Surrender nver entered into the mind of Hirohito.
Until we flattened two of Japan’s cities.
Peace through overwhelming firepower. It still works, although many have conveniently forgotten.
fogw on August 6, 2007 at 5:33 PM
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:28 PM
You mean, like what the Japanese did to Chinese civilians in Manchuria, or what the Nazis did in WW2, or what practically all Islamic terrorists do, like flying airplanes into the WTC on 9/11? Or maybe you thnk George W Bush really did that by remote control.
Sherman said it best when he said that “war is all hell.” That is the nature of war.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Murder is murder is murder(War is war is war). Sorry if that offends you (not really (I think we got that part)!
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:26 PM
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 5:32 PM
You should google that. I’ve seen pictures of it, and it’s gruesome. I’m not belittling what the NAzis did by any measure, but people seem to think the Germans were the only ones who committed atrocities. The Japanese were just as brutal.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Actually yes, Japs did biological warfare studies by dissecting specimens (aka PoWs or civies) while they were alive.
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Thanks both.
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 5:37 PM
The casualty projections for the invasion of the Japanese home islands were: 1,000,000 American, 6,000,000+ Japanese. The Japanese government was equipping women and children with bamboo spears to defend Japan (and I wonder how long it would have taken the Japanese leaders to come up with an explosive vest for the children a’la Hamas). Take the projected casualties for the invasion against the actual casualties from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then make your own judgment. As far as the “killing of innocent civilians”, those same innocent civilians were prepped and trained to attack Allied troops, which in my mind makes them a whole lot less “innocent”!
Jonas Parker on August 6, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Actually yes, Japs did biological warfare studies by dissecting specimens (aka PoWs or civies) while they were alive.
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Yup, I would have preferred a gas chamber if I had been there and had the opportunity to choose and those were the two choices.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 5:40 PM
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Did a quick google, found this:
http://www.kanai.net/weblog/archive/2003/09/19/18h10m02s
There’s lots more.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 5:40 PM
My Dad as well, after having served in Europe was due to ship out from the Philipines for the invasion of mainland Japan.
All these sanctimonious arguments about the supposed immorality of dropping the bomb are usually spouted by people who’ve never bothered to study the history of WW2, and think themselves morally superior to The Greatest Generation.
infidel4life on August 6, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Why is this so complicated for you people to figure out? I am not justifying bin-Laden’s behavior or the Japanese atrocities during WWII! I think the behavior is evil, no matter WHO does it! THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Killing innocent people in order to win a war does not change the fact that you killed innocent people. Get it? In case some of you with less subtle minds have a hard time figuring this out: I DO think America is the good guys, I DO think we’re the greatest country in the world, but I DON’T think dropping atomic bombs on a civilian populace is a just way of conducting a war! How in the hell does saying “war is hell” justify the causing of more hell? I’m sorry, but that is an immoral view of the world.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Dropping the A-Bombs was analogize to a Doctor amputating a toe rather than a leg.
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 5:42 PM
And I suppose you missed the posts where people have explained the unbelievable bloodshed that would have occurred on both sides if the bombs had not been dropped?
EnochCain on August 6, 2007 at 5:44 PM
WillBarrett if I ever become a Doctor and you have gangrene in your toe, I will not amputate your toe, I will wait till I have to amputate your leg. Sound fair?
MB4 on August 6, 2007 at 5:44 PM
I’ve met pilots and gunners that flew B29s and dropped on Tokyo. They created huge firestorms with conventional weapons much like the RAF did over Germany. They would drop ordnance that took off the roofs and then drop the insinuary bombs. Very effective and many more lives lost than with the A-bomb.
It’s easy now to rehash this and find fault, but when I see the US Servicemen on the History or War channel, that survived Japanese POW camps, and hear them say how glad they are we nuked them, with tears in their eyes, they make a believer out of me.
Hening on August 6, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Does one commit evil in order to do good? I don’t think so…I’m sorry, it’s just a fundamental philosophical difference I have with you people. I certainly didn’t miss the posts, I just disagree with the fundamental point behind them.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I’m picturing the townspeople from Hot Fuzz chanting “greater good” when I read your guys’ replies to WillBarrett.
Nonfactor on August 6, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Greater Good, indeed.
Nice to see the troll wolfpack has started to rally.
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM
What I don’t get is why you seem to care which way the “innocent people” die. I mean what we’re trying to say Will is that the following WERE THE ONLY OPTIONS -
A) America just gives up, and decides to leave the Japanese alone to start another war
B) The US Military kills millions invading Japan
C) The US Military kills thousands nuking Japan
So now, you’re saying that A wasn’t what you wanted. So okay! Which, between B and C is better?
Don’t you get it? They didn’t HAVE smart bombs back then. They didn’t HAVE precision weapons. If you wanted to bomb a factory you had to bomb like 20 blocks of regular city! If you wanted to stop a city from producing goods for the war effort, you had to LEVEL it. Don’t you get how war was fought back then?
Sometimes we dropped bombs on our OWN men. Do you think we did that on purpose? Bombing was very risky, very hard, and had to be done en masse in order to be effective – and aiming wasn’t easy.
So, grown ups recognize that sometimes you don’t GET some mysterious option where “Good guys win, bad guys lose, no innocent people get hurt” okay? That’s just not an option sometimes – it’s really not an option MOST times. And it wasn’t then.
So that’s what we’re saying when we say “War is hell”. We mean, hey, you have a bad choice, and a REALLY bad choice. Which do you pick when the options are “killing 1000s” or “killing 1000000s”?
apollyonbob on August 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:41 PM
You obviously don’t get it. And that’s fine. THe greatest deterrent to attack is strength, not weakness. People like you may be well-intentioned, but you have heard the road to Hell is paved with good intentions? The problem is that people who are bent on conquest do not respond to warm-fuzzies. They respect cold steel, and if necessary the atomic bomb. That was the situation in WW2, it is the situation today.
In the Marines we were taught to pray for peace, but train for war.
That’s real life. Get used to it.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM
I have no idea who you agree with, but I must admit, I do feel like I’m being ganged up upon by an unruly mob. I mean, because I believe that dropping the atomic bombs on innocent civilians for what they might have done, I am now a Truther who believes that W had a hand in the WTC bomber, or some other left-wing loon. Guyz, I realize this is the Internet, but some of you are like the right wing versions of the Kossacks. Hate to break it to you…
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:52 PM
So, you preferred the slow deaths of both Americans and Japanese on Japan’s soil, potentially killing millions, versus the two-moment bombings of several hundred thousand?
That is the choice that was faced. What is so hard to decide?
MadisonConservative on August 6, 2007 at 5:52 PM
That is just a false assumption, plain and simple. Winning a war requires extreme violence against your enemy. In and of itself, that is not evil. History shows plainly that at that time, the entire populace of Japan was the enemy.
infidel4life on August 6, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Wait, so now I’m a troll? Because I have a difference of opinion about atomic bombs? Considering I would no doubt agree with you on 90% of the other issues, but because I disagree with you on this one, I am a troll. Pathetic.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Alright, I hear you, and I skimmed your link.
When in war, as the good guys, when the enemy starts bombing cities and it creates a strategic advantage that would cost the good guys the war, what would be your response? What about if a heavy-handed response ended up saving lives?
What about in the future, if we know a nuke is set to strike a US city. Is collateral (possibly including civilian life) damage not okay if the greater damage and civilian death is averted?
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 5:55 PM
No you saying that we’re all moral relevists in one broad stroke and criticizing our opinions while not giving any plans to what General Will Barrett would have done is infuriating most of us.
Oh and
doesn’t fall under constructive criticism anytime soon.
And he was agreeing with you.
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 5:56 PM
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:52 PM
You’re the one saying we were evil for dropping the bombs. And you have yet to show that any other alternative was viable. What would you have done?
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Yes, but “extreme violence” isn’t the same as evil. I don’t have a problem with “extreme violonce” per se, as long as it as directed toward a just end….Kill Japanese soldiers all day long, just don’t kill women and children. I don’t see how you could say the ENTIRE populace was the enemy. I just don’t buy that assertion. Again, agree to disagree, as none of us will ever know…
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Didn’t we have something on here recently about how the military printed up MILLIONS of purple hearts in anticipation of an invasion of Japan, giving us a supply that is still not exhausted to this day?
DaveS on August 6, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Eh… “printed up” wasn’t exactly the right word there, obviously, but you get the point.
DaveS on August 6, 2007 at 5:58 PM
And thank’s for calling me pathetic, falls under what I just posted. No I was referring to nonfactor, obviously you didn’t pick up that twice now.
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 5:58 PM
WillBarrett, if you want a good analysis of the Japanese war mindset at that time, I suggest to you the Okinawa section of Victor Davis Hanson’s Ripples of Battle. That had ended only two months before Hiroshima, and all 100,000 Okinawan citizens had been pressed into fighting, allegedly to the last person. It was estimated at the time that some 30,000,000 mainland citizens had also been “volunteered” into service, with the expected results that Jonas Parker (5:37) noted above. I skimmed your Anscombe article and what she missed was that, yes, many if not most Japanese wanted to end the war but, unfortunately, not those who were actually in charge of the war, and they were committed to fighting to the last person. So how would you have ended it?
And, by the way, Hiroshima was chosen because it was an Army headquarters and Nagasaki since it was a major port. Bombing the larger civilian city of Kyoto was rejected.
eeyore on August 6, 2007 at 5:59 PM
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 5:57 PM
You can ignore history all you want, it doesn’t change anything. It happened, and that’s the way it was wether you “buy it” or not.
Dropping the bombs was extreme violence for the just end of ending WW2 and saving lives, which it did. So by your own argument, you should support the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You’re painting yourself into a corner.
jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Does that justify killing Japanese civilians? You don’t know where I come down on this issue, either. Want to make assumptions about my views on gun control too?
Nonfactor on August 6, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Then you obviously are not familiar with the history of Japan during and prior to the war.
“none of us will ever know” ??? – Choose to be ignorant if you like, but the facts of history are there to be known by whomever wants to know.
infidel4life on August 6, 2007 at 6:03 PM
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong and I’ll apologize; but when you say does that mean “civilians” are justifiable targets, I know what side you come down on.
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Thank you for being civil, Spirit of 1776, I cannot say the same for most of the other commenters.
You are right to raise the question about collateral damage. I do not have a problem with collateral damage (say, bombing a house with a terrorist mastermind, where his family is staying as will), because the purpose or intent of the act is not the collateral damage (which is why it’s “collateral”). In other words, you are not killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians, even if that may occur. This is sometimes called “double effect” or when an action has both a good and bad consequence.
As far as what I would’ve done, I’m not sure, but I would’ve exhausted other options before dropping the bombs OR invading. I would’ve at least TRIED demonstrating to the Japanese the awesome power of the atomic weapon. You people are fond of pointing out that EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD would’ve fought to the last, but if they REALLY were like that, why the hell would an atomic bomb stop them? Look, I understand where you people are coming from, I just disagree, and I hope you understand where I’m coming from…
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 6:07 PM
When all the facts are considered, yes.
infidel4life on August 6, 2007 at 6:07 PM
A couple years ago I took a WWII class, one of our assignments was to write a long paper about our thoughts on the atomic bomb being dropped on Japan. I’m sure if you read that paper not only would you feel like a jackass for making ignorant assumptions, but you’d be a bit surprised too.
Nonfactor on August 6, 2007 at 6:08 PM
So what is one life worth to you? If you can save 10 people would you kill someone? What if that person was Japanese? Would the number drop?
Nonfactor on August 6, 2007 at 6:09 PM
I’m a history major, I’ve been to military and civilian lectures on Japan and the Imperial military, professionals that are recognized unlike you’re paper about thoughts and feelings. I doubt anything you can do will make me feel like a jackass (something only I can do), but… if you ever find the paper, or decide to write another one, I would gladly review, analyze, and write a counterpoint.
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Will – So, they bombed Hiroshima, and the Japanese didn’t surrender. What would a demonstration have shown other than we didn’t have the moxy to use the bomb on a city?
I mean, do you really, honestly, think that a “demonstration” would have swayed them, even in the slightest? I mean I get that you would like to appeal to “well you never know” but come on. Sometimes you do know.
apollyonbob on August 6, 2007 at 6:12 PM
I am actually kind of confused…I’m not sure if you were being sarcastic or not….If you WEREN’T calling me a troll, than I am sorry. I’m not very good at sensing sarcasm over the internet…BUT IT SOUNDS like you think BOTH me AND Nonfactor are trolls (hence the troll “pack)….I can assure you I am not TRYING to be a troll….just simply disagreeing with the “orthodoxy” that is presented on this board.
As far as Japanese history, I am pretty familiar with it, at least with the feudal period and the samurai bushido code (which is what you folks are likely referring to as the reason we had to drop the bombs). That said, I will indeed read Mr Hanson’s writing on the subject, as I think he is a very good writer. I guess, ultimately, what I’m saying, dropping the atomic bombs should’ve been a last resort, and it was nothing of the sort, from what I understand.
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 6:14 PM
I can understand why you would do it, because you are likely addressing a lot of people, but please don’t ‘you people’ me. Thanks.
Having read your response then, is it safe to conclude that the predominate issue to you then is intent? If our intent is a military target, then collateral damage must be accepted as a sad consequence. (If I follow correctly)
Then the question remains only this: can there ever be such a time that the civilian population would be considered a military target? [the link you provided perhaps answers for you, as that would indicate no]
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Believe it or not in college papers you need to cite professionals; I wasn’t BSing my way through the paper, buddy. I know the requirements for being a history major, it’s not that impressive.
I never said I was going to do anything to make you feel like a jackass, I said you made a jackass out of yourself for making ignorant assumptions.
Did you miss my point completely?
Nonfactor on August 6, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Good argument! I like that one. Because he doesn’t know the exact limit of his argument, you took it way beyond that limit, and implied he was a racist!
It’s a twofer!
apollyonbob on August 6, 2007 at 6:15 PM
1. We had a demo.
2. They weren’t impressed, even when we leveled an entire city of mostly civilians. They were prepared to go on.
3. We had another demo.
4. They were impressed. They surrendered.
5. Game over. War over.
Given how history played out, I submit that your plan of having a civilized “demonstration” of the power of the A-bomb would have been a dismal failure.
fogw on August 6, 2007 at 6:16 PM
It may not have, you are absolutely right…But it seems to me it’s WORTH TRYING. I mean, my God, were talking about the taking of thousands of civilians….I would at least TRY another option first before I signed off on it!
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Truman just might have done that had we had the resources. But at that time there were exactly two a-bombs in existence, a primary and a backup. And no one was 100% sure if either one or both of them would work. This was basically a one shot deal. And had the Japanese not surrendered after Nagasaki, we still would have had to continue the war by conventional means. Truman did not have the luxury of hindsight that we do today.
infidel4life on August 6, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Heh. ‘I must assume you are unscholarly. And if you merely read the thoughts of the truly wise, you too would know.’
I appreciate the amusement.
Spirit of 1776 on August 6, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Maybe when I said “
“, I didn’t quite say it right.
Find the paper or write another one. It’s a good ol “I’ll meet you on the field of honor at dawn, bring pistols” challenge.
I’m calling you out coward. Get the point?
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 6:17 PM
You’re ignoring history and the fact it indeed was the last resort. The first bomb wasn’t even enough to get them to surrender which proves there was no way to convince Japan to surrender short of losing 2 cities. What more proof do you need?
The second mistake you’re making is assuming there were “innocent civilians.” They weren’t. It was total war:
TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 6:18 PM
I look forward to seeing, say 62 years from now, us remembering Iran and/or Saudi Arabia and/or Syria the same way.
SouthernGent on August 6, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Will, I’m not calling you a troll. If I thought you were a troll I wouldn’t bother getting into the debate.
infidel4life on August 6, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Here are some quotes from wikipedia that will no doubt make some of you uncomfortable:
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
“The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman
There are plenty more where they came from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary
WillBarrett on August 6, 2007 at 6:20 PM
PS
Means that, just as equally with me, you’re full of shit until you can actually prove otherwise; but don’t worry, you did “couple years ago I took a WWII class.”
Almost as good as staying at a holiday inn last night.
TheEJS on August 6, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 5 Next »