At Hiroshima’s 70th Anniversary, Japan Again Mourns Dawn of Atomic Age

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Some of you here seem to think that Japan, invaded, would have behaved differently from Japan, in other places where they fought to the death. I don't. Why would the leopard change its spots?

Still insisting on a binary proposition I see. Invasion or bombing...only two options. Let us know when you want to join the conversation we're having rather than the one you want to have.

To be repetitive, those I knew who lived through it have a near-unanimous opinion of the A-bombing. I tend to accept first hand experience over what's being kicked around decades later. Did they have personal bias? Almost certainly, and for good reason. It was their comrades in arms and family members who were dying every day at the hands of the Japanese.

To be repetitive:

1. It's not near unanimous. Anecdotes do not equal evidence.

2. We are also offering first-hand experience rather than merely the opinions of those kicking it around decades later. This is not a point you have any sort of advantage on.

One fact is irrefutable: Shortly after those bombs were dropped the war stopped. Any other possible scenario that goes "yes but this way might have..." is nothing but speculation or wishful thinking. Little Boy and Fat Man got the job done quickly and efficiently.

Yes, mass murder of civilians can have that effect. If a gunman walks into your house demanding you do something that you refuse to do, if he shoots your dog in the head and tells you your child is next, you're quite likely to go along. If you refuse and he does shoot your kid and says next he goes for your other kid or your wife, you're even more likely.

No one said the tactic wasn't effective, so you're arguing a point that no one is contesting. Congrats. What's being debated is whether it was necessary or right.

[homersapien 11,385]

What I find interesting about this topic is the question of what is deemed morally acceptable and what is not.

For example, there's really not a moral difference between massive fire bombing raids and dropping the A bomb. The decision to drop the bomb doesn't surprise me at all. After all, we had already crossed the line to mass killing of civilians.

So, if the decision to kill civilians en mass is considered to be an acceptable tactic to win the war, why not consider using poison gas or biological warfare?

[TitanTiger 20,498]

What I find interesting about this topic is the question of what is deemed morally acceptable and what is not.

For example, there's really not a moral difference between massive fire bombing raids and dropping the A bomb. The decision to drop the bomb doesn't surprise me at all. After all, we had already crossed the line to mass killing of civilians.

So, if the decision to kill civilians en mass is considered to be an acceptable tactic to win the war, why not consider using poison gas or biological warfare?

Neither are morally acceptable. But the topic was the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima so that's what's mainly being talked about.

[homersapien 11,385]

What I find interesting about this topic is the question of what is deemed morally acceptable and what is not.

For example, there's really not a moral difference between massive fire bombing raids and dropping the A bomb. The decision to drop the bomb doesn't surprise me at all. After all, we had already crossed the line to mass killing of civilians.

So, if the decision to kill civilians en mass is considered to be an acceptable tactic to win the war, why not consider using poison gas or biological warfare?

Neither are morally acceptable. But the topic was the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima so that's what's mainly being talked about.

Sorry, are you saying poison gas and biologics weren't morally acceptable but burning people alive is?

[Strychnine 1,802]

What I find interesting about this topic is the question of what is deemed morally acceptable and what is not.

For example, there's really not a moral difference between massive fire bombing raids and dropping the A bomb. The decision to drop the bomb doesn't surprise me at all. After all, we had already crossed the line to mass killing of civilians.

So, if the decision to kill civilians en mass is considered to be an acceptable tactic to win the war, why not consider using poison gas or biological warfare?

That is what I was getting at with this statement in my earlier post: "However, any argument about morality or atrocities is moot. We had already dispensed with that concept when we started firebombing cities. Once you have crossed the bridge into war crimes, you may as well continue. If you emerge victorious, they were not war crimes anyway."

After considering other US military actions in both theaters, namely carpet bombing and firebombing, it is quite clear that moral concerns were not at the top of our totem pole of priorities.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Just for curiosity's sake, Id like to ask if yall think rules of war is a legitimate concept or a natural concept? If I'm literally fighting to my death and Im getting my ass handed to me, would it not be natural to grab that mustard gas clipped to my vest and deploy it so I can survive?

[AUDub 11,153]

...mustard gas clipped to my vest...

Odd hypothetical

[aujeff11 6,243]

...mustard gas clipped to my vest...

:headscratch:/>

Odd hypothetical

mustard gas was just mentioned so I ran with it....figuratively speaking. Lol

[Strychnine 1,802]

Just for curiosity's sake, Id like to ask if yall think rules of war is a legitimate concept or a natural concept? If I'm literally fighting to my death and Im getting my ass handed to me, would it not be natural to grab that mustard gas clipped to my vest and deploy it so I can survive?

Rules of war are made necessary by the destructive capability we have created. When wars were fought in fields by archers and men armed with swords or spears, formal rules of war were not very necessary. Once we invented long-range artillery, bombs, weapons of mass destruction, aircraft, and missiles, the manner of war changed greatly due to those weapons' capabilities and their deployment on populated cities. Nuclear weapons have the capability of destroying entire cities and their populations in a matter of seconds. Biological weapons can eradicate an entire population. Chemical weapons are more effective against civilian targets than they are military ones. Once deployed, none of those three weapons are precise or discriminate, and they affect large areas. That mustard gas clipped to your vest does not just eliminate your individual threats within a confined area. It keeps going wherever the wind takes it, which might just as easily be into the nearby populated town.

There are no circumstances under which the employment of carpet bombing cities, firebombing cities, or deploying any weapons indiscriminately against civilians should be considered acceptable. The very use of any of those constitutes a war crime, and no circumstances change that.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

What I find interesting about this topic is the question of what is deemed morally acceptable and what is not.

For example, there's really not a moral difference between massive fire bombing raids and dropping the A bomb. The decision to drop the bomb doesn't surprise me at all. After all, we had already crossed the line to mass killing of civilians.

So, if the decision to kill civilians en mass is considered to be an acceptable tactic to win the war, why not consider using poison gas or biological warfare?

Neither are morally acceptable. But the topic was the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima so that's what's mainly being talked about.

Sorry, are you saying poison gas and biologics weren't morally acceptable but burning people alive is?

No. Sorry...I missed that there were three options. None of them are acceptable. I was just explaining why we were so focused on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs and not discussing all the other terrible tactics.

[Mikey 16,614]

Ever talked to someone that was in one of the torture/slaughter pens that were the Japanese prison camps? I have. I was also in the Air Force with an old NCO that was in the Bataan Death March. Do y'all have any concept of what the Japanese were doing at the time? Any concept of how they were behaving? The Nazi's were humanitarians by comparison.

If those A-bombs ended the war just six days earlier than it otherwise would have ended, then they saved hundreds of American prisoners from being bayoneted or starved to death. The fuel used to drop those bombs was money well spent.

[homersapien 11,385]

What I find interesting about this topic is the question of what is deemed morally acceptable and what is not.

For example, there's really not a moral difference between massive fire bombing raids and dropping the A bomb. The decision to drop the bomb doesn't surprise me at all. After all, we had already crossed the line to mass killing of civilians.

So, if the decision to kill civilians en mass is considered to be an acceptable tactic to win the war, why not consider using poison gas or biological warfare?

That is what I was getting at with this statement in my earlier post: "However, any argument about morality or atrocities is moot. We had already dispensed with that concept when we started firebombing cities. Once you have crossed the bridge into war crimes, you may as well continue. If you emerge victorious, they were not war crimes anyway."

After considering other US military actions in both theaters, namely carpet bombing and firebombing, it is quite clear that moral concerns were not at the top of our totem pole of priorities.

Exactly.

[Mikey 16,614]

Some of you here seem to think that Japan, invaded, would have behaved differently from Japan, in other places where they fought to the death. I don't. Why would the leopard change its spots?

Still insisting on a binary proposition I see. Invasion or bombing...only two options. Let us know when you want to join the conversation we're having rather than the one you want to have.

To be repetitive, those I knew who lived through it have a near-unanimous opinion of the A-bombing. I tend to accept first hand experience over what's being kicked around decades later. Did they have personal bias? Almost certainly, and for good reason. It was their comrades in arms and family members who were dying every day at the hands of the Japanese.

To be repetitive:

1. It's not near unanimous. Anecdotes do not equal evidence.

2. We are also offering first-hand experience rather than merely the opinions of those kicking it around decades later. This is not a point you have any sort of advantage on.

One fact is irrefutable: Shortly after those bombs were dropped the war stopped. Any other possible scenario that goes "yes but this way might have..." is nothing but speculation or wishful thinking. Little Boy and Fat Man got the job done quickly and efficiently.

Yes, mass murder of civilians can have that effect. If a gunman walks into your house demanding you do something that you refuse to do, if he shoots your dog in the head and tells you your child is next, you're quite likely to go along. If you refuse and he does shoot your kid and says next he goes for your other kid or your wife, you're even more likely.

No one said the tactic wasn't effective, so you're arguing a point that no one is contesting. Congrats. What's being debated is whether it was necessary or right.

That's what war is all about. Break the enemy's will. Sherman's march through Georgia is another example of the "War is Hell" idea and it goes back far, far into history. The idea is to make the enemy quit as soon as possible. The fact that splitting an atom was involved didn't change anything, it only sped up the process.

Americans were dying every day, both in combat and in the horrendous Japanese prison camps. Dropping the bombs saved American lives, so yes, the decision to bomb was the correct one.

[homersapien 11,385]

Just for curiosity's sake, Id like to ask if yall think rules of war is a legitimate concept or a natural concept? If I'm literally fighting to my death and Im getting my ass handed to me, would it not be natural to grab that mustard gas clipped to my vest and deploy it so I can survive?

Rules of war are made necessary by the destructive capability we have created. When wars were fought in fields by archers and men armed with swords or spears, formal rules of war were not very necessary. Once we invented long-range artillery, bombs, weapons of mass destruction, aircraft, and missiles, the manner of war changed greatly due to those weapons' capabilities and their deployment on populated cities. Nuclear weapons have the capability of destroying entire cities and their populations in a matter of seconds. Biological weapons can eradicate an entire population. Chemical weapons are more effective against civilian targets than they are military ones. Once deployed, none of those three weapons are precise or discriminate, and they affect large areas. That mustard gas clipped to your vest does not just eliminate your individual threats within a confined area. It keeps going wherever the wind takes it, which might just as easily be into the nearby populated town.

There are no circumstances under which the employment of carpet bombing cities, firebombing cities, or deploying any weapons indiscriminately against civilians should be considered acceptable. The very use of any of those constitutes a war crime, and no circumstances change that.

So, in aujeff's terms, rules of war are strictly legitimate but may be antithetical to (our) nature.

[alexava 6,973]

My only concern is why not sooner and more of them. We were attacked by them. Then we were 4 or 5 years into a tiring global conflict. Bust 'em with what ya got. End it sooner the better.

[quietfan 233]

Just for curiosity's sake, Id like to ask if yall think rules of war is a legitimate concept or a natural concept? If I'm literally fighting to my death and Im getting my ass handed to me, would it not be natural to grab that mustard gas clipped to my vest and deploy it so I can survive?

A reasonable question...but not one I can readily answer as I am a pacifistic and like to think I would never take another human life just to save my own. (Although I am also a realist in the sense that I know I can't begin to predict what my reaction would be if actually in such a situation.)

However, not an analogy that's comparable to the Hiroshima issue: 1. Invasion or not, Japan was beaten, our survival was no longer in question (Even without an invasion, a blockade would have left them to wither on the vine with little danger to us or the world.) 2. Technically it's highly unlike one could deploy any sort of WMD in a hand-to-hand struggle without posing equal danger to oneself. As the adage goes: What good is a hand grenade in a broom closet fight?

Rules of war are made necessary by the destructive capability we have created. When wars were fought in fields by archers and men armed with swords or spears, formal rules of war were not very necessary.

Yes, technology has made us much more effective at mass killing. But while we may have newer ideas about the "rules of war" inspired at least in part by the magnitude of destruction technology makes possible, savagery and atrocity were actually far more common in the "sword and spear" days.

Defeated populations were routinely sold into slavery for most of our human history. Rape, pillage, and plunder--at least for a few days--were often considered simply the due rewards of victorious troops after taking a city. Egyptian pharaohs were known to have their troops collect the severed penises of their enemies as a way of counting casualties. Popes tried for years to limit violence among the feudal houses of Europe by establishing "rules of war" that included Church-proclaimed "peace" holidays when warfare was (officially but not effectively) forbidden, until Urban II had the bright idea to send them off to fight Saracens instead of each other. Said Crusaders, of course, slaughtered most of the population of Jerusalem--man, woman, child, and small animals--when they finally captured that city. Genghis Khan built pyramids from the skulls of city populations that resisted him.

I'm glad we have the concepts of "war crimes' and "crimes against humanity" today, but we should have had them thousands of years earlier!

[quietfan 233]

Ever talked to someone that was in one of the torture/slaughter pens that were the Japanese prison camps? I have. I was also in the Air Force with an old NCO that was in the Bataan Death March. Do y'all have any concept of what the Japanese were doing at the time? Any concept of how they were behaving? The Nazi's were humanitarians by comparison.

If those A-bombs ended the war just six days earlier than it otherwise would have ended, then they saved hundreds of American prisoners from being bayoneted or starved to death. The fuel used to drop those bombs was money well spent.

First: I mean no disrespect to our POW's or to any victims of Japanese brutality.

But I wonder if you have a precise formula for the sentiment expressed in your last paragraph, i.e.:

How many innocent Japanese civilian lives, children included = the life of 1 American POW?

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

First of all, back to the OP (Golf) who posted an article from the NY Times on the 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. Did anyone read it? It mentioned that the US has never apologized for the bombing. And, that Japan has been reluctant to acknowledge its part in WWII atrocities all over the lands they occupied. I'm not holding my breath for either country to be forthright with an official apology anytime soon. The A-bombs were horrific, barbaric & catastrophic. If they weren't, then those words don't hold any meaning. But then again, we can't ignore the horrific, barbaric & catastrophic nature of conventional weapons either -- is there much difference in a human body vaporized by an A-bomb than from a direct hit of an artillery shell? Certainly not to the ones vaporized.

Until next year when we bring this issue up again for the 71st anniversary, I'll leave with this article written by a professor at Sandhurst: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nuclear_01.shtml

It's a little long but well worth the read. I like how it addresses the evolution of opinions & criticism of the US's dropping of the atom bombs. Many of which have been brought up in this thread.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

That's what war is all about. Break the enemy's will. Sherman's march through Georgia is another example of the "War is Hell" idea and it goes back far, far into history. The idea is to make the enemy quit as soon as possible. The fact that splitting an atom was involved didn't change anything, it only sped up the process.

Americans were dying every day, both in combat and in the horrendous Japanese prison camps. Dropping the bombs saved American lives, so yes, the decision to bomb was the correct one.

Even war has rules. And for centuries we at least tried to follow the principles of Just War. At least those leaders and people who made any claim to being Christian did, albeit imperfectly. One of those principles is that you don't deliberately target non-combatants. This was a direct violation of that principle. The men who were developing our bombing strategies had extensive plans for taking out the rest of Japan's industrial and military capabilities on the island, cutting off supplies to their navy and taking out the rail lines across the country. There were many other steps we could have taken to bring them to their knees and surrender.

"War is hell" isn't a cover-all for doing whatever the #$@! you want to in the name of ending it sooner. Not for a moral or ethical people. Win at any cost, by any means is the tactic of evil people.

[Mims44 1,872]

That's what war is all about. Break the enemy's will. Sherman's march through Georgia is another example of the "War is Hell" idea and it goes back far, far into history. The idea is to make the enemy quit as soon as possible. The fact that splitting an atom was involved didn't change anything, it only sped up the process.

Americans were dying every day, both in combat and in the horrendous Japanese prison camps. Dropping the bombs saved American lives, so yes, the decision to bomb was the correct one.

Even war has rules. And for centuries we at least tried to follow the principles of Just War. At least those leaders and people who made any claim to being Christian did, albeit imperfectly. One of those principles is that you don't deliberately target non-combatants. This was a direct violation of that principle. The men who were developing our bombing strategies had extensive plans for taking out the rest of Japan's industrial and military capabilities on the island, cutting off supplies to their navy and taking out the rail lines across the country. There were many other steps we could have taken to bring them to their knees and surrender.

"War is hell" isn't a cover-all for doing whatever the #$@! you want to in the name of ending it sooner. Not for a moral or ethical people. Win at any cost, by any means is the tactic of evil people.

The mention of the crusades is just a few posts above, yet you bring up Christians being above targeting non-combatants.

To the bold part, just about everyone from any time period is "evil" then.

[Mikey 16,614]

Ever talked to someone that was in one of the torture/slaughter pens that were the Japanese prison camps? I have. I was also in the Air Force with an old NCO that was in the Bataan Death March. Do y'all have any concept of what the Japanese were doing at the time? Any concept of how they were behaving? The Nazi's were humanitarians by comparison.

If those A-bombs ended the war just six days earlier than it otherwise would have ended, then they saved hundreds of American prisoners from being bayoneted or starved to death. The fuel used to drop those bombs was money well spent.

First: I mean no disrespect to our POW's or to any victims of Japanese brutality.

But I wonder if you have a precise formula for the sentiment expressed in your last paragraph, i.e.:

How many innocent Japanese civilian lives, children included = the life of 1 American POW?

I don't know of any comparison that would lead me to call the Nazi's "humanitarians". But admittedly they usually treated American and British POW's better than the Japanese did...perhaps not so much Russian or Slavic POW's. As for crimes against civilian populations, I'd call it pretty much a draw between those two Axis powers. But then our ally Stalin was no Boy Scout when it came to "crimes against humanity"...even against his own people.

My formula would be one American prisoner tortured, bayoneted or starved=one A-bomb deserved. Since acts of brutality were being committed against hundreds per day, two A-bombs were underkill to the extreme.

Titan, "rules of war" were being ignored throughout the entire conflict. London, Dresden, Nanking, on and on into infinity. Rules of war demanded humane treatment of POWs but the Japanese were ignoring that too. Maybe "everybody else was doing it" (breaking the rules of war) isn't a good excuse for some, but I believe it is. If you're in a game, fight, war and nobody else is following the rules then you better forget the rules and fight to win. That's what we did, nothing more, nothing less.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Just for curiosity's sake, Id like to ask if yall think rules of war is a legitimate concept or a natural concept? If I'm literally fighting to my death and Im getting my ass handed to me, would it not be natural to grab that mustard gas clipped to my vest and deploy it so I can survive?

A reasonable question...but not one I can readily answer as I am a pacifistic and like to think I would never take another human life just to save my own. (Although I am also a realist in the sense that I know I can't begin to predict what my reaction would be if actually in such a situation.)

However, not an analogy that's comparable to the Hiroshima issue: 1. Invasion or not, Japan was beaten, our survival was no longer in question (Even without an invasion, a blockade would have left them to wither on the vine with little danger to us or the world.) 2. Technically it's highly unlike one could deploy any sort of WMD in a hand-to-hand struggle without posing equal danger to oneself. As the adage goes: What good is a hand grenade in a broom closet fight?

Rules of war are made necessary by the destructive capability we have created. When wars were fought in fields by archers and men armed with swords or spears, formal rules of war were not very necessary.

Yes, technology has made us much more effective at mass killing. But while we may have newer ideas about the "rules of war" inspired at least in part by the magnitude of destruction technology makes possible, savagery and atrocity were actually far more common in the "sword and spear" days.

Defeated populations were routinely sold into slavery for most of our human history. Rape, pillage, and plunder--at least for a few days--were often considered simply the due rewards of victorious troops after taking a city. Egyptian pharaohs were known to have their troops collect the severed penises of their enemies as a way of counting casualties. Popes tried for years to limit violence among the feudal houses of Europe by establishing "rules of war" that included Church-proclaimed "peace" holidays when warfare was (officially but not effectively) forbidden, until Urban II had the bright idea to send them off to fight Saracens instead of each other. Said Crusaders, of course, slaughtered most of the population of Jerusalem--man, woman, child, and small animals--when they finally captured that city. Genghis Khan built pyramids from the skulls of city populations that resisted him.

I'm glad we have the concepts of "war crimes' and "crimes against humanity" today, but we should have had them thousands of years earlier!

I was referring more to conduct of the actual battle than what happened to the defeated population after the battle was over, or making the distinction between war crimes and the crimes against humanity that typically followed. I suppose the concept of indiscriminate targeting technically started with the use of the onager and combustible projectiles against cities. Ultimately, a civilian could at least pick up a sword or spear and be on something resembling a level of weaponry parity with those seeking to massacre them in the "sword and spear days". That is not ideal, but they did have the option of attempting self-defense. There is no defense a civilian population can mount against an armada of aircraft carpet bombing their city with conventional or incendiary devices, or a single aircraft with a nuclear weapon.

That said, you are quite right; we needed rules of war thousands of years ago.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Titan, "rules of war" were being ignored throughout the entire conflict. London, Dresden, Nanking, on and on into infinity. Rules of war demanded humane treatment of POWs but the Japanese were ignoring that too. Maybe "everybody else was doing it" (breaking the rules of war) isn't a good excuse for some, but I believe it is. If you're in a game, fight, war and nobody else is following the rules then you better forget the rules and fight to win. That's what we did, nothing more, nothing less.

I understand that, and those instances have been criticized as well. This isn't about all the other times, but regardless the fact that it had happened already doesn't baptize this instance into being ok. The thread was started regarding the anniversary of the a-bombs being dropped. I also understand that nations we understood to be evil did lots of evil things. It's a big reason why we, the good guys here, went to war with them.

But part of being the good guys is that you don't use the same moral calculus to conduct a war as they would. Just because evil regimes do evil things does not give us carte blanche to match their evil in the name of ending a war.

You shall not do evil that good may come of it. You don't mass murder civilians. That is not something "good guys" do.

[Mims44 1,872]

I also understand that nations we understood to be evil did lots of evil things. It's a big reason why we, the good guys here, went to war with them.

We were actually cool with being isolationists... by a good majority. Until Pearl Harbor happened.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

That's what war is all about. Break the enemy's will. Sherman's march through Georgia is another example of the "War is Hell" idea and it goes back far, far into history. The idea is to make the enemy quit as soon as possible. The fact that splitting an atom was involved didn't change anything, it only sped up the process.

Americans were dying every day, both in combat and in the horrendous Japanese prison camps. Dropping the bombs saved American lives, so yes, the decision to bomb was the correct one.

Even war has rules. And for centuries we at least tried to follow the principles of Just War. At least those leaders and people who made any claim to being Christian did, albeit imperfectly. One of those principles is that you don't deliberately target non-combatants. This was a direct violation of that principle. The men who were developing our bombing strategies had extensive plans for taking out the rest of Japan's industrial and military capabilities on the island, cutting off supplies to their navy and taking out the rail lines across the country. There were many other steps we could have taken to bring them to their knees and surrender.

"War is hell" isn't a cover-all for doing whatever the #$@! you want to in the name of ending it sooner. Not for a moral or ethical people. Win at any cost, by any means is the tactic of evil people.

The mention of the crusades is just a few posts above, yet you bring up Christians being above targeting non-combatants.

To the bold part, just about everyone from any time period is "evil" then.

I acknowledged that even Christians have not always perfectly followed the tenets of their faith in this area. But people failing to live up to doing the right thing does not mean it is no longer "the right thing."