This is pure speculation. I have seen several sources (none online that I can immediately link to, unfortunately) that while there was a portion of the Japanese leadership that was considering surrender, there was another hard-line faction that wanted to fight until the bitter end, even to the point of drafting women and children into the armed forces. Plus, the Japanese were not willing to surrender unconditionally (and wanted more than to leave the emperor as a figurehead), which was not in compliance with Allied policy.
I will admit that Hiroshima was somewhat justified, however, Nagasaki seems like it was not needed...and hence wrong... However, I agree with GV's statement in that we do not hate America for actions that were wrong...we study America warts and all... (people these days often forget about the "and all" part of that statement)
is there a difference between something being 'justified' and something being 'moral'? i think people have differing opinions on this.
Yeah I think there is a difference between morality and justice. Although the Platonic defintion of justice is somewhat different than the legalistic expression that gets used today...morally, its not right to ever kill....however...when an action like this is committed, sometimes it can be justified....like less lives would have been lost etc. etc.
I think morality is justice. Morality is not a set of rules, but a system of thought based on ideas of right and wrong. It is looking at a problem or situation, and finding the soltuion that causes the least amount of suffering. Do I think killing 100,000 + people was the best soltuion to our problem? Nope.
Justice in the Platonic sense means one man, one art by nature. This has to do with far less situations than morality...i.e. having to pick the worser of two things to do...by your definition, both actions would be bad and thus immoral, however, one action would be more justified than another..there has to be a distinction between morality and justice I believe..of course these days, justice has simply returned to an eye for an eye...but what can you do?
Whatever justifications are created, they don't change the truth. The bombing was ethically wrong according to the set guidelines of ethical war, which the U.S., among other countries, strives to adhere to. Targeting civilians is, and will always be, unethical. If you don't agree, then the 9/11 terrorists should be praised for their amazingly effective, efficient, and ethical attack on the WTC.
It's a tough thing. Generally I oppose the bombing of civilians. Actually, it's grotesque. However.... ....the militarists were ready to supercede the emperor and fight on at all costs. What would we have done if not dropping the a-bombs? Probably blockade and starvation of the population until surrender, with, perhaps, a show of force by exploding an atom bomb in an uninhabited area (off-shore) to let the Japanese know what we have. Fire-bombing Tokyo with conventional bombing was taking more lives than the atomic bombs. It doesn't justify the use of the nukes, but I don't think we would have been more humane had we not used them. At the time, America wanted an end to the war, stat, and so we got it. In hindsight, with continued firebombing, the Emperor probably would've thrown up the white flag anyway (if his hardliners hadn't squirelled him away somewhere to prevent surrender). And the more I read into the subject, the more I see that Truman, like so many others of the time (but not, it turns out, like the real soldiers of the day, Eisenhower and Nimitz) wanted to drop the bombs and had no qualms; but his main motive was to scare our new enemy the Russians. Truman, to me, was no great hero. I prefer Presidents with a bit of vision. He had a very narrow perception of non-Americans and their motives. The Russians had borne the brunt of the war in a way that even Americans at the time could not fathom (between Hitler and Stalin, who knows how many Russians died?) So the Russians were also extremely suspicious of outsiders' motives and were nearly impossible to deal with. In time we would have the Truman Doctrine, which basically militarized our economy, and helped set the stage for the U.S. to constantly seek or invent enemies. So, no, I don't think dropping the bombs was particularly moral. But world power has always been about who carries the biggest stick and is willing to use it.
Why couldn't anyone think of an alternative? The US could have easily dropped the bomb at a more desolated area, an island, a mountain, a small fishing village ... .... The destruction would have been huge to that site, the structure, the buildings ... Don't you think they'd get the message if half the side of the mountain was blown away? No argument could be made to justify the killing 100,000 civilians for the "effect" !
Concur up to the very end, Emperor Hiroito was being advised that Japan was winning the War against the round eyes. the 2nd bomb convinced the Hiroito to surrender unconditionally. beyond saving many US soldier lives, the 2nd bomb saved millions of Japanese women and children, who otherwise would have been drafted to find off the US military. thus, the 2nd bomb was moral---the least costly (measured in human lives) alternative to end the War started by Japan ============================================== the rape of Nanking and the the forcible use of Korean women to comfort the Japanese invaders were done without moral.
If I recall, that was thought about. The Hiroshima bomb was different in design than the Trinity site bomb and they were not real sure it would actually work. The idea that we would do an exhibition for the whole world and end up with a dud was one of the reasons we didn't do it that way.
Then why did you include your roommate's ridiculous religious opinion in the first place if this has nothing to do with your biased personal faith?
He was making reference to the fact that my roomate thought it was the devil at work, which for someone religious, is not an outstanding belief to have, but that was a moot point because I was using it to support my argument, plus I didn't agree with my roomate 100%, once again, just throwing out an argument...
NO! The bombings were not justified! How could killing hundreds of thousands be justified? Revenge? is not justice and can never be justified. Self defense? The bombing were clearly to much to be considered self defense (and offense isn´t defense).
Huge difference, as pointed out in JWT. Any time you do something that will kill an innocent civilian, that is immoral (hence my opinion on the two bombs). However, when the action that is taken demonstrably saves lives in the process, it CAN be justified. There was definitely justification in dropping the first bomb and there was, albeit much less, also justification in dropping the second. The bombs saved American lives and may have been a net savings in Japanese lives as well, depending on whose estimates you believe about how many would have died in an invasion of the home islands. As to the big dick contest, I believe that dropping the bombs and seeing the devastation was enough to keep MAD alive for both sides. If the devastation had remained theoretical, it might have been easier for Kruschev to thumb his nose when Kennedy threatened over Cuba and it might have been easier for us to nuke the island over it. There might have been several situations that would have played out differently if we had never dropped them. All in all (and hindsight being 20/20), I think the right decision was made at the time, although it might have been made for the wrong reasons. Immoral but justified.
Yes, of course you would have had to fight otherwise. You could not have chosen not to? There are always more possibilities, You saved 100000 americans by killing 100000 japaneese. Great!
up to the very end, Emperor Hiroito was being advised that Japan was winning the War against the round eyes. there was a faction in Japanese Gov't who wanted to draft women and children to fight to the bitter end. the 2nd bomb convinced the Hiroito to surrender unconditionally. beyond saving many US soldier lives, the 2nd bomb saved millions of Japanese women and children, who otherwise would have been drafted to fight off the US military. thus, the 2nd bomb was moral---the least costly (measured in human lives) alternative to end the War started by Japan
All of these "greater good" justifications ultimately are crap. The simple fact is that the bombs were not used in a discriminant fashion, and civilians were intentionally targeted. No matter what other factors existed, the dropping of the bombs was an unethical act of war.
Explain to me why a show of force that destroys buildings, structure, mountain, island ... could not be done? Saving lives by killing! Such a wonderful concept !!!
I thought of the demonstration aspect a while back, but I think the reality of the time was that it was a MAJOR world war, and emotions were extremely high, and hatred abounded. By today's standards, we think of precision based war, and we fight our battles with the intent on lessening civilian casualties. At that time, with everything on the line, I think the intent was clear-ENOUGH of this, and don't mess with the USA, ever again, and that goes for everybody else too. Generally speaking, it was basically us against them. We fought as a country, do or die. No playing around. Perhaps it could have been handled better, but I wasn't there, and I think that we are doing a much better job in today's time. I'd never heard of the "rape of Nanking...", but I did a little searching on it, and it is truley baffling how cruel people can be. War is hell no matter how you slice it.
