Atomic Bomb did not save lives

[JSSebastianoP]

The simple fact was that American fire bombing could, and did, kill 100,000 people in Japan. In Europe, the USAAF was flying 1000 bomber raids. Back to Japan, the B-29 was coming into service. The P-80/F-80 jet fighter was coming into service.

Then the Russians entered the war against Japan. So an invasion was not required. Atomic bombs were not required.

Peace,
Ed

I didn’t read the whole thread yet, but please allow me to comment.
I would like to make a comment about the Japanese culture as I have studied this period very much; The Japanese were ready to mobilise every man, woman, and child. The Japanese Emperor is, in the Shinto religion, a decendant of Amaterasu the sun goddess and was thus considered to be a deity on earth. As I said, how could these people disobey their emperor? Of course many of them did not want the war, but Japan at that time had a very hierarchial society; you did what your supeiriors told you, valuing honour over life. Look what the Japanese did on Iwo Jima. The Americans won in the end, but at what cost? Their main island, Honshu, is probably not even as big as California, yet Japan is so much more densely populated and mountainous. Can you imagine the difficulty of fighting every man, woman, and child of an entire nation on their home turf? Also, the Russians were in the war angainst Japan, yes, but mainly in Mongolia and near China (territories captured by Japan). I think that the usage of the Atomic Bomb is one of the defining moments in history. I have visited Hiroshima myself and been to the Peace Memorial Park. I went to the museum there. I wanted to take pictures to show to everyone but as soon as I walked in and saw a broken watch stopped at 8:15, I couldn’t even touch my camera.
Also, in America, many thought that we had created a weapon that would end all wars in the future. Even Szilárd, who was the main physicist working on the A-Bomb, felt that it should not have been used. In the end though, because the Japanese were ready to mobilise their entire country, who can say wheter we saved lives or not? I think that that is a question that is impossible to answer.

 

[sawman]

It never ceases to amaze me how many brilliant people there are after the fact. The decision to use the “bomb”, has spawned more know-it-alls and self-righteous prigs, than any other decision in history.
Most of the commentators, if not all of them on his thread were not only NOT privy to the information available to the Decider, but have formed an OPINION based on faulty or worse, deliberately misleading information.
The prudent authorities at the time made a decision to the best of their ability, period. No one can best that.
This not the first thread on this topic, and won’t be the last. I’ll not coment or read any more about this.

Peace, all
Tom

 

[imolestmygrnkid]

dude, you are a ****in idiot of you think that the atomic bomb killed more people than it saved. I agree that it was a horrendous event that slaughtered innocent people, however, you are most likely not aware with what would have been the “invasion of Japan”. You probably know nothing about military history and/or never saw WWII footage on the history channel. The invasion of Japan would have taken the lives of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YOUNG AMERICAN MEN. We fight a war to protect OUR country over any other country, even though that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. The invasion of Japan would have changed the history of the world. It would have made Normandy look like an everyday melee. After the war, when we went into Japan, we found hundreds of miles of armored fortifications along every island. The Japanese were ready for our assault after Pearl Harbor, and it would have been a disaster. So… once again, your a ****in idiot and have not

 

[Koopa]

Let’s remind ourselves that emotions are not relevant to a moral decision, on either side. It’s also insufficient to weigh the results of one choice against the results of another and call it settled.

I think it is necessary to evaluate this act just as you would any other act, guided by the Catechism, of course.

Remember the three elements that make up a moral act,

1. the act itself
2. the intent of the act
3. the circumstances and consequences of the act
4. The act itself was dropping the atomic bomb. Duh. That’s an act of war. Acts of war are not intrinsically evil. Deliberate killing of innocents is intrinsically evil, but were the deaths of the civilians deliberate or not? We need to look at the intent to clarify, and this question seems to be what should be the crux of the debate.
5. America intended to end the war. Good. But let’s go deeper. Did America intend to destroy industrial centers, or did it intend to effect something that is absolutely contingent upon the deaths of innocents? If it was the latter, then the deaths were deliberate and the moral act was evil.
6. The end of the war likely saved more lives than were lost by the atomic bomb. (I suppose that requires deeper study by some student of history, so I can’t really pretend to definitively declare that statement.)

To paraphrase, the debate should really center around the question of whether or not the killing of innocents was intended in order to achieve some end. If the US intended to kill innocents in order to scare Japan out of the war, then they committed an evil act. If the US simply intended to destroy industrial bases, without the intent to harm the innocent, AND HENCE used the minimum force necessary, then they were justified.

This matter is similar to the situation of an ectopic pregnancy, where a mother and consequentially her unborn child will die if the inflamed portion of the fallopian tube wherein the unborn child is situated is not removed. In that case, the act results in the death of an innocent human person (the unborn child), but the act is morally permissible because

1. The surgical removal of the section of the fallopian tube is not in itself immoral,
2. The intent is to save the mother and not to kill the child, and
3. The consequences of performing the surgery are better than the consequences of not performing it. Performing the surgery results in the preservation of a life, whereas not performing it does not result in the preservation of any life.

 

[tjm190]

The two plausible motives, as I see were-

1. The belief that invasion would prove necessary, obviously pushing American casualties much higher in a war that Americans were already quite weary of. The bomb could have served as a way to convince the Japanese that regardless of their actions there would be no invasion- Japan’s military and industrial infrastructure would be radioactive ruin before an American boot was on the ground. Supported by the fact that, despite what others may tell you, major elements of the Japanese government were radically prowar and unwilling to surrender- the most radical of these elements attempted a coup after Hirohito announced he would be accepting Potsdam.
2. The belief that, with the entry of Soviet forces into Manchuria, Japan would consider a surrender to Soviet rather than American forces. The failure to reach Berlin before the Soviets could have augmented this fear (the good ol’ Iron Curtain began falling well before the recognized start of the Cold War). The bomb sent a clear message- we have beaten you, and will continue to beat you until you either surrender to us or there is nothing left to beat. Supported by the fact that civilian rather than military targets were chosen, also the possible desire to demonstrate our latest weapon to the Soviets.

I think we’d generally understand the rationale behind 1, but might reject 2- although in all honesty it would be hard to make an argument that Japan would be in anything comparable to the position it’s in today had it been invaded and occupied by Soviet forces and spent half a century under communist rule.

 

[wabrams]

Supported by the fact that civilian rather than military targets were chosen,

Sorry, but this is incorrect. The target of Hiroshima was one of the Japanese army divisions and the 2nd target at Nagasaki was the ports and military-industrial complex factories,

 

[tjm190]

Sorry, but this is incorrect. The target of Hiroshima was one of the Japanese army divisions and the 2nd target at Nagasaki was the ports and military-industrial complex factories,

Japanese society had spend nearly one and a half decades in a state of total war, you weren’t going to find a major population center without significant war-related manufacturing. Most US manufacturing centers were contributing to the war effort, but I’d hardly call the city of detroit a military target.

Furthermore, dannen.com/decision/targets.html

"A. Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise. "

Military value was not even a passing thought.

 

[wabrams]

Japanese society had spend nearly one and a half decades in a state of total war, you weren’t going to find a major population center without significant war-related manufacturing. Most US manufacturing centers were contributing to the war effort, but I’d hardly call the city of detroit a military target.

Furthermore, dannen.com/decision/targets.html

"A. Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise. "

Military value was not even a passing thought.

So the fact that they were of military value is just a coincidence, huh?

 

[tjm190]

So the fact that they were of military value is just a coincidence, huh?

According to their own criteria for selecting a target, yes- all that was needed was a certain size, ability to be effectively damaged by the blast, and that they were unlikely to be attacked by US forces in the near future.

The presence of a few factories or ports does not make a city of 100,000 people a military target.

 

[edwest2]

How much damage did conventional fire bombing cause to Tokyo? In Europe, there were thousand bomber raids. It may seem wrong, but the same could have been done over Japan. Once the Russians were done in Europe, they began to move onto Japanese claimed territory. The Japanese were not going to win a two front war.

God bless,
Ed

 

[JimG]

This subject was extensively debated in several previous threads, including this one. For a historical review of why the bombs were used and why they had to be, see these books which were recommended by poster GKC several times, including the post quoted below:

“On that last question above, see Wilcox’s JAPAN’S SECRET WAR. Not sure I believe all of it, but it is interesting.

On the issue of the bombs, generally, I’m not interested in starting the debate again, either. I did enough of it before, here, and am not likely to do it again, in detail. But if you want the reasons why the bombs were used, and why they had to be, without the revisionist slant of someone like Alperovitz, the best read is Frank’s DOWNFALL. And also HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY: THE MYTHS OF REVISIONISM (ed. Maddux), Maddux’s WEAPONS FOR VICTORY and Newman’s TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT are both excellent. For the relevance of Okinawa to the idea of defeating Japan, and the use of the bombs, read Feifer’s TENNOZAN. Or read it anyway; it’s the best single book on fighting the Japanese in the Pacific that I know of. For revisionist mythology, Alperovitz is the place.

BTW, I never argue against a RC accepting and affirming what the RCC says on this matter. But historical facts are historical facts.

GKC”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=302370&highlight=hiroshima

 

[tjm190]

How much damage did conventional fire bombing cause to Tokyo? In Europe, there were thousand bomber raids. It may seem wrong, but the same could have been done over Japan. Once the Russians were done in Europe, they began to move onto Japanese claimed territory. The Japanese were not going to win a two front war.

God bless,
Ed

Yes, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t going to fight- again, some elements of the government were so opposed to surrender that they attempted a coup when Hirohito announced his decision to surrender, and this was after the bombs.

And why would conventional bombing having been preferable? Both would have left the city in utter ruin, and the extent of the damage radioactive fallout caused was at that time unknown.

 

[JimG]

Yes, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t going to fight- again, some elements of the government were so opposed to surrender that they attempted a coup when Hirohito announced his decision to surrender, and this was after the bombs.

And why would conventional bombing having been preferable? Both would have left the city in utter ruin, and the extent of the damage radioactive fallout caused was at that time unknown.

Indeed, conventional bombing had already done more damage to Tokyo. The same amount of damage could have been wreaked on Hiroshima and Nagasaki using conventional bombs, but I doubt that it would have been preferable morally.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Not just conventional bombing (which was tried) but General LeMay switched to using incendiary bombs, taking “advantage” of the wood construction that was used in Tokyo and other cities in Japan. The result of this bombing were massive firestorms, unbelievable destruction, agonizing death and no surrender. Significant portions of many Japanese cities were decimated. No surrender. The imperial forces of Japan wanted a land-based fight where (like Okinawa and Iwo Jima) it was believed that the casualties (estimates of up to one-million for the USA) would break the USA’s willingness to continue the fight and result in a conditional surrender.

Only when Japan was faced with obliteration and extinction with only minimal USA casualties was the surrender obtained. No honorable death, no last stand, no heroes, no martyrs, no legends.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t going to fight- again, some elements of the government were so opposed to surrender that they attempted a coup when Hirohito announced his decision to surrender, and this was after the bombs.

And why would conventional bombing having been preferable? Both would have left the city in utter ruin, and the extent of the damage radioactive fallout caused was at that time unknown.

Actually, the effects of exposure to radioactive materials was known.

physics.isu.edu/radinf/50yrs.htm

Instruments were sited to record radiation at the Trinity test.

cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/trinity/trinity1.html

Conventional bombing would have been preferable for the same reason conventional bombing is preferable today: using radioactive materials would have meant contamination to property.

It would not matter that the Japanese will to fight would have remained. Continual bombing would have led to surrender, or, if not, to a number of malnourished survivors using whatever was left.

God bless,
Ed

 

[estesbob]

My mother and father are about as liberal and as pacifist as you can get.One thing they absolutely agree on, however, was the need to drop atomic bombs on Japan. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the fact my father was on a ship offshore getting ready to invade Japan when the bombs were dropped. I know that the Church has condemned the bombings. I think, however, that it is much easier to make these decisions years after the fact than it was that those living at that time

 

[tjm190]

Actually, the effects of exposure to radioactive materials was known.

physics.isu.edu/radinf/50yrs.htm

Conventional bombing would have been preferable for the same reason conventional bombing is preferable today: using radioactive materials would have meant contamination to property.

It would not matter that the Japanese will to fight would have remained. Continual bombing would have led to surrender, or, if not, to a number of malnourished survivors using whatever was left.

God bless,
Ed

The effect of prolonged exposure to radioactive materials was known- however, the extent to which radioactive fallout effected survivors and the land itself was not. The only possible way this could have been studied was at the trinity test, and that would have taken months to fully understand the repercussions. We measured levels of radiation, not the long term consequences. Do you really think they would have tested the device on US soil above ground if they had know what we know now? Fallout from trinity could quite possible have found its way Santa Fe.

We knew almost nothing about nuclear weaponry at that time- many scientists believed that the trinity test would have resulted in an explosion thousands of times more power than physically possible up to and including the ignition of the atmosphere and end of all ground life on Earth.

Conventional bombing had been tried, and failed to have any major effect on the mentality of the Japanese government. Nuclear weaponry provided the threat of total annihilation, which was enough.

 

[cargau]

The decision to use the bomb was a tactical one. While Japanese civilians no doubt perished during the attacks, the intent was not to kill people, the intent was to end the war and save American lives. Consequentially, people died. Yet, the plan was successful on both counts.

This topic has been debated ad nauseam for decades. The reality is that during wartime, the use of weapons that may result in collateral damage, while unfortunate, is not fundamentally problematic morally.

If a plane dropped a bomb (non-atomic) and someone unrelated to the battle taking place died, one would not be aghast at the moral depravity, would they?

So what’s the difference? Magnitude??? Many thousands versus several hundred lives?
Does magnitude constitute morality or should we measure morality through actions?

Is abortion wrong because it ends a life or is abortion wrong because so many babies are killed? Of course, it is the action and not the magnitude that makes it morally wrong…

 

[JimG]

I don’t think that the Church’s moral objection to the use of atomic weapons is based solely on the fact of their radioactivity. If that is the case, I’m unaware of it. The moral objection is to the targeting of civilian populations.

Other than the radiation, a nuclear bomb is only different from a conventional weapon in regard to its explosive power, stated in terms of tonnage. From that standpoint, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were pretty small, compared to what can be done with current weapons.

At the same time, tactical nuclear weapons can be made nearly as ‘small’ in terms of explosive power, as one might wish.

And if one were to design a fusion bomb which did not require a fission bomb to trigger it, there would be no radioactivity.

 

[JimG]

My mother and father are about as liberal and as pacifist as you can get.One thing they absolutely agree on, however, was the need to drop atomic bombs on Japan. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the fact my father was on a ship offshore getting ready to invade Japan when the bombs were dropped. I know that the Church has condemned the bombings. I think, however, that it is much easier to make these decisions years after the fact than it was that those living at that time

I knew a WW-II veteran who was a POW and in the Bataan death march. He was in a Japanese POW camp at the time the atomic bombs were dropped. To this day, Truman is his hero. I have heard the same from many WW-II veterans.

I can only imagine what public opinion would have been had the U.S. invaded Japan with hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, and later it came out that Truman had these weapons available and not used them. He would have been the subject of instant vilification both post-war and probably ever after.