G
GKC
Guest
Suffice it to say that neither source ( and I don’t think graypiper was serious; I wasn’t) would have been intellectually respectable.
GKC
- Status
GKC
E
edwest2
Guest
By same result, I mean that the Japanese leadership would have a choice: surrender or have thousand bomber raids dropping tons of incendiaries and regular bombs daily for as long as it took. It would be possible for the Japanese to give up by radio at any time. But, the land grab competition was on. Our new enemies, and former allies, the Russians, simply could not be allowed to get Japan. It was our prize for the taking.
God bless,
Ed
G
GKC
Guest
And they would not have surrendered. And the continuation of the conventional bombing/blockade would have increased the deaths. And thus the OP is incorrect.
GKC
N
Newbie2
Guest
Hard to say for certain, Hindsight is 20/20 as they say…but from all I’ve ever read or heard, I’d have to agree, G. It doesn’t sound to me like Japan wasn’t going to give up without a fight to the death, particularly for their homeland.
One only has to look at battles like Tarawa to see the mindset of fight to the death no matter what the cost.
But we’ll never know. Would the Japanese have surrendered after only one bomb dropped, maybe waiting a couple more weeks so that they could assess the damage and the threat of a second one being dropped? We’ll never know.
G
GKC
Guest
Not so hard to say, after a long time reading on it. Okinawa is the test case, not Tarawa. On the list of books I posted above (all of which I recommend, for one reason or another) there is the title TENNOZAN. It shows why.
And one would need to know something about the Japanese Ketsu-Go plan. and a knowledge of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, and how Japan was run. Try Frank’s book.
It is a subject that needs study, in depth, for an understanding.
GKC
The_Reginator
Active member
When I say the title of this thread it reminded me of an interesting opinion piece I read in the Ottawa Citizen that I linked to in another thread.
(Sorry if this has been discussed. I didn’t want to read another 14 pages. Bedtime is looming.)
It gave me a new perspective. From the info I read here it sounds like the bomb was the lesser of two evils:
From* “A horrible necessity”
*
(Sorry if this has been discussed. I didn’t want to read another 14 pages. Bedtime is looming.)
It gave me a new perspective. From the info I read here it sounds like the bomb was the lesser of two evils:
From* “A horrible necessity”
*
J
JIMBARRY1946
Guest
I have long credited Harry Truman and the atomic bomb with my existence. My father was on the way to Tokyo Bay on a minesweeper when the bombs were dropped. The chances of any of the men doing that service surviving to raise a family were nearly zero%. The way the Japanesse fought for little worthless islands in the Pacific tells us they didn’t often surrender. They were fighting for their god–the emperor. Their government didn’t value human life at all–their peoples’ or ours. They were concerned for the rulers lives, and finally were scared into giving up. Many Japanesse and American lives were saved.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Okay, fair enough.
My reply was really directed at my fellow Catholics who claim to faithfully follow all church teaching (since there are so many of us here). Such people would be hard-pressed to reconcile a belief that the United States’ use of the atomic bombs during WWII was morally justified, with the moral principles of their faith, but I respectfully acknowledge that this is not a dilemma you face.
Unlike others in this thread.
G
GKC
Guest
I thank you. While my respect for the Magisterium is great, it is not what is expected from a RC.
GKC
E
edwest2
Guest
I’ve been challenged to a book duel? Gasp! Anything but that!
Instead, I’ll quote from a booklet that was distributed by:
The American Legion
National Defense Division
Indianapolis 6, Indiana
It is dated March, 1947. The title is "Will Russia Rule the Air?’ It is an excerpt from an article that appeared in Collier’s magazine, a respected, high circulation publication before the days of TV.
“It is not generally known, but weather considerations had much to do with the bombing dates of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Visual bombing was desirable, to ensure effectiveness; but weather for that is uncertain anywhere in Japan after the end of August. If the drops had not been in that month, the war would have ended without the introduction of the atom bomb.”
Quite a statement that I’m sure veterans reading it in 1947 would have strongly objected to. If additional atom bombs were to become available at the end of August, it appears they would not have been used.
God bless,
Ed
J
JimG
Guest
There were a great many actions deliberately undertaken during WW-II which did not comply with Catholic just war principles. The fire-bombing of Dresden comes to mind but it is only one. Catholicism does not accept consequentialism as basis for action. Yet, had the A-bombs not been used, it is quite likely that the end result in terms of lives lost and suffering incurred–on both sides–would have been much worse. So, would a stand against using the bombs at the time have been any less morally acceptable?
In other words, should Truman have said, “no, I won’t use the bombs, even though it will cost more allied and Japanese lives not to use them?”
G
GKC
Guest
If you think that’s a compelling argument, from a compelling source, I don’t think I can help you. Not that I really expected to, in any case.
As to a book duel, I do generally win those. I’ve been a book collector for over 50 years, and, after culling several thousand titles over the past 2-3 years, now am possessed by something over 20,000 volumes, including, of course, the titles I listed. In situations like this, they come in handy.
The target for the 3rd bomb was to be Tokyo. The use for around 4 of the next bombs was, as I noted, expected to be tactical support for the Kyushu invasion.
A booklet. 1947.
Devastating.
GKC
T
traillius
Guest
Regardless of the morality of the atomic bomb usage, the fact is that the country as a whole, nor any specific person involved in the operation had any authority or culpability, except the president and the topmost military commanders. Therefore Obama, The US today, my grandfathers, bow veterans of ww2, god rest both their souls, me, and anyone else you name, aside from the high command during that time, are not to blame, therefore not liable to apologize. Even the pilot isn’t really liable. Despite the ineffectiveness of the " nurenberg defense " ( I was following orders ) this is a case of not blaming the messenger, in this case the pilots, who didn’t make the decision. So blame truman and his generals, if you think the a bomb was wrong, but don’t blame The country, the soldiers, their descendents, Obama, or the population at large, of either then or now. And unless you are truman, not only is your apology wasted and not necessary, but its also ineffective. You can’t legitimately offer apologies, or take blame, for something beyond your control. The flip side is that I don’t need to even defend the actions, since I am not responsible for them. Only a very few people are. None of which are alive today.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
You are right, of course. It’s good that you point this out.
Other possibilities:
(a) accept a conditional surrender
(b) use the bombs on purely military targets. Yes, I know the Japanese were arming civilians and all that, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Period.
The bombs could have been used on purely military targets.
If, however, that had not been an option, what would the moral answer to your question nonetheless be? If one were to conclude that using the bombs was the morally superior choice because fewer lives would be lost, then that is indeed consequentialist thinking bordering even on utilitarianism (which, after all, professes quite straightforwardly that the moral choice in a situation is whatever results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people).
G
GKC
Guest
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, as has been detailed in the thread, before. Certainly as much so as the 16 square miles of Tokyo that were firebombed, in March.
GKC
GKC
D
Dj87
Guest
The Bombs WERE Both ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, although tragic for the loss of life they were still the lesser of two evils.
I
Ignatias20
Guest
Those two Atomic Bombs DID SAVE LIVES.
Google, Truman, atomic bomb and Japan, casualties.
The U.S. Gov’t estimated that a minimum of 6 Million would died if we invaded Japan. Over 1.5 million Purple Heart Medals were manufactured to get ready for the invation. We are still using some of them today.
It was the Shock of these two bombs that made the military government of Japan to decide to surrender. The Emporor wanted peace before the military did. The Atomic Bombs did save over 5 million lives. Less than 200,000 died from the Atomic Bombs.
Yes it was terrible, but the prudent thing to do back then.
Google, Truman, atomic bomb and Japan, casualties.
The U.S. Gov’t estimated that a minimum of 6 Million would died if we invaded Japan. Over 1.5 million Purple Heart Medals were manufactured to get ready for the invation. We are still using some of them today.
It was the Shock of these two bombs that made the military government of Japan to decide to surrender. The Emporor wanted peace before the military did. The Atomic Bombs did save over 5 million lives. Less than 200,000 died from the Atomic Bombs.
Yes it was terrible, but the prudent thing to do back then.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have read some, but not all of the posts, so if this is redundant, please forgive me and ignore this post.
It is my understanding that the atom bombs actually gave the imperial cabal in Japan an excuse to end the war. Clearly, the government had prepared the people for a civilian resistance/bloodbath like that which took place on Okinawa. But even that would not have spelled the end of the people of Japan; a “sacred people” in Japanese cultural belief; a people whose end would be a tragedy beyond measure. The end of the world, from their point of view.
We may never know, in our lifetime, whether the Japanese knew the U.S. had only two bombs. Nor will we know how much the Japanese knew about how many the U.S. could fabricate or how quickly, and what, exactly, their effect would be. Japan had its own atomic scientists, so they likely had some idea.
But there certainly was a belief that atomic bombs might utterly obliterate the sacred islands and the sacred people, not to mention the sacred person of the emperor. Japanese could not possibly have doubted the ability of the bombs to vaporize the emperor, the imperial palace and the “sacred regalia” at Ise.
If the Japanese people were truly ready to die for the emperor and the sacred islands, then, the imperial government could reasonably suppose, they would be ready to live to save them in the face of utter destruction of all they held sacred.
And so, the imperial government could end the war “in order to spare” all things sacred to the Japanese; something that would be less certain if G.I’s hit the beaches of Japan. Indeed, the Emperor’s broadcast “surrender” speech spoke of the need to preserve the people of Japan. And too, the ability to surrender Japan whole and entire might allow the preservation of the emperor system; something a drawn-out “werewolf” war might have made impossible and might have led to the hanging of the emperor, his generals and the “princes of the blood” instead of the few, less important people, who actually were executed by the allies.
Strange as it may seem to us now, it is possible the Japanese government was actually grateful for the bombs; twisted as their thought processes were.
It is my understanding that the atom bombs actually gave the imperial cabal in Japan an excuse to end the war. Clearly, the government had prepared the people for a civilian resistance/bloodbath like that which took place on Okinawa. But even that would not have spelled the end of the people of Japan; a “sacred people” in Japanese cultural belief; a people whose end would be a tragedy beyond measure. The end of the world, from their point of view.
We may never know, in our lifetime, whether the Japanese knew the U.S. had only two bombs. Nor will we know how much the Japanese knew about how many the U.S. could fabricate or how quickly, and what, exactly, their effect would be. Japan had its own atomic scientists, so they likely had some idea.
But there certainly was a belief that atomic bombs might utterly obliterate the sacred islands and the sacred people, not to mention the sacred person of the emperor. Japanese could not possibly have doubted the ability of the bombs to vaporize the emperor, the imperial palace and the “sacred regalia” at Ise.
If the Japanese people were truly ready to die for the emperor and the sacred islands, then, the imperial government could reasonably suppose, they would be ready to live to save them in the face of utter destruction of all they held sacred.
And so, the imperial government could end the war “in order to spare” all things sacred to the Japanese; something that would be less certain if G.I’s hit the beaches of Japan. Indeed, the Emperor’s broadcast “surrender” speech spoke of the need to preserve the people of Japan. And too, the ability to surrender Japan whole and entire might allow the preservation of the emperor system; something a drawn-out “werewolf” war might have made impossible and might have led to the hanging of the emperor, his generals and the “princes of the blood” instead of the few, less important people, who actually were executed by the allies.
Strange as it may seem to us now, it is possible the Japanese government was actually grateful for the bombs; twisted as their thought processes were.
G
GKC
Guest
This is pretty accurate, and supportable from a number of sources. Japanese officials more or less on the impotent “peace faction” side have stated as much. The 2nd bomb ended the hope that there was only one. And, if had been needed, the 3rd bomb would have been on hand on Tinian by the end of August.
Japan had a fairly sophisticated atomic program, more so than Germany. See JAPAN’S SECRET WAR/Wilcox.
GKC
- Status