Atomic Bomb In WWII

[GKC]

It was not hindsight when Dwight D. Eisenhower opposed the dropping of the ABomb. For example, he wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
“In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.
“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.

MacArthur’s position of the bombs was predicated on his desire to lead the greatest amphibious assualt and invasion in history, as Field Marshall Supreme. And, contra the Nimitz quote, the Japanese had not sued for peace, in any fashion, in any place, with any persons, as of 5 August. Again, read any history of the era. Frank is particularly recommended, but I can list many others. It simply isn’t so.

GKC

.

 

[GKC]

The moral bankruptcy of your position is strongly indicated by the fact that you have to make up silly things for your opponents to say, which are completely different from the things we are actually saying.

Go argue with your straw men if you want to. But don’t kid yourself that you’re having a real conversation with other people.

No one is making a comparative argument here. No one is claiming that the Japanese in the 1940s or modern Americans are better than Americans in the 1940s. In fact, I for one am not passing judgment on the subjective guilt of the people who dropped atomic bombs. I’m making a claim about what is objectively moral. At all times. At all places. Everywhere.

And yet I’ll bet that you and Al Masetti and the other pro-Hiroshima folks somehow think that *you *are the conservatives. Or am I misrepresenting you there?

Edwin

I myself am not a pro-Hiroshima person. I’m a pro-end of war, with significantly fewer casualties person. Which the bombs achieved, in 4 days.

GKC

 

[LRThunder]

In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, says:
“As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one’s judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible.”

I wonder if they say the same about the surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor.

 

[Contarini]

I myself am not a pro-Hiroshima person. I’m a pro-end of war, with significantly fewer casualties person. Which the bombs achieved, in 4 days.

GKC

Fair enough. But it’s still a utilitarian argument. Legitimate if you have previously decided that the use of atomic weapons against civilian centers is justified if it will save lives over the long term.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I wonder if they say the same about the surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Why on earth would you wonder this for a minute?

Edwin

 

[bobzills]

I myself am not a pro-Hiroshima person. I’m a pro-end of war, with significantly fewer casualties person. Which the bombs achieved, in 4 days.

GKC

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey determined that the A Bomb had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported:
“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

 

[LRThunder]

Why on earth would you wonder this for a minute?

Edwin

Because the previous quote addressed surprise bombing. Were we supposed to give the Japanese advance notice of our targets when they didn’t give advance notice re: Pearl Harbor?

 

[Wolseley]

The moral bankruptcy of your position is strongly indicated by the fact that you have to make up silly things for your opponents to say, which are completely different from the things we are actually saying.

Now I’m morally bankrupt. Oh, good.

Go argue with your straw men if you want to. But don’t kid yourself that you’re having a real conversation with other people.

My own fault. I get sucked into these damnfool atomic bomb threads when I know fully well that they’re an exercise in futility.

No one is making a comparative argument here.

Except when it comes to comparing the use of an atomic bomb with Anything Else.

No one is claiming that the Japanese in the 1940s or modern Americans are better than Americans in the 1940s. In fact, I for one am not passing judgment on the subjective guilt of the people who dropped atomic bombs. I’m making a claim about what is objectively moral. At all times. At all places. Everywhere.

I notice, however, that you don’t get as passionate about it if you were discussing, say, the objective morality of Vercingetorix burning towns and crops in Gaul to deny the Romans shelter and supply depots, even though the villagers were thus rendered starving and homeless.

Why is that?

And yet I’ll bet that you and Al Masetti and the other pro-Hiroshima folks somehow think that *you *are the conservatives. Or am I misrepresenting you there?

Edwin

I wouldn’t dream of challenging your assessments, my dear fellow.

 

[bobzills]

I notice, however, that you don’t get as passionate about it if you were discussing, say, the objective morality of Vercingetorix burning towns and crops in Gaul to deny the Romans shelter and supply depots, even though the villagers were thus rendered starving and homeless.

Why is that?.

Because we are required to pay taxes and support weapons systems which we believe are not moral. As citizens we have a obligation to speak up against immorality. The use of nuclear weapons is morally indefensible on a number of grounds.
And as well, the damage they inflict is horrendous. Iccho Itoh, the mayor of Nagasaki, wrote::
“It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for [decades] to come. …] with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities …] The use of nuclear weapons …] therefore is a manifest infraction of international law.”

 

[Contarini]

Except when it comes to comparing the use of an atomic bomb with Anything Else.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. What are the other things that people are justifying by comparison with the atomic bomb?

I notice, however, that you don’t get as passionate about it if you were discussing, say, the objective morality of Vercingetorix burning towns and crops in Gaul to deny the Romans shelter and supply depots, even though the villagers were thus rendered starving and homeless.

Since I have never discussed this subject, how would you know how passionate I am or am not about it?

Furthermore, destroying crops in the face of an invading enemy is not the same things as directly killing thousands of people. That really is a case where I’d have to know more about the circumstances.

And finally, of course I’m going to be more passionate about a case that still has repercussions in the present. Talk to me about the atrocities the Romans committed, and I’ll get plenty passionate, because our society owes so much to the Romans and you can find people who hold them up as an example. I suppose some French nationalists admire Vercingetorix, and if you want to persuade me that this is a problem, I’m certainly willing to listen.

However, your example is patently frivolous. You don’t care about Vercingetorix. You aren’t arguing that anyone should care. You’re just picking a random historical example in order to make a debating point.

It should be obvious that the dropping of atomic bombs fifty years ago by the country in which many of us live, a country that is today unquestionably the most powerful nation in the world, is a subject on which it is quite appropriate to get passionate. Particularly given how relentlessly the advocates of war today use the events using up to WWII as examples of the dangers of “appeasement.” It’s hard to believe that you can’t see why this is a relevant subject on which to get passionate.

I wouldn’t dream of challenging your assessments, my dear fellow.

If you disagree, I wish you would challenge them. Your tone of bored detachment is, yet again, a way of avoiding the moral issue.

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

The Old Testament is not relevant for a discussion of this issue.

Edwin

Why?

If Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever, why disallow data that reveals truth about moral teaching? Specifically, if Christ at any point in history willed the destruction of entire cities, then it is no possible to say that it is an absolute grave sin, or else you make Christ to be a sinner.

Therefore, the law of double effect can, in theory, still be applied, although one still has to make the balanced application that is necessary to justify an extreme action.

 

[GKC]

The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey determined that the A Bomb had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported:
“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Yes, I know. And, I also know that the conclusions of the USSBS were, occasionally, politically slanted. That particular assessment is the ur-statement of the school of revisionism, on the use of the bombs.

I’ve been reading this subject area for many, many years, and have made it through many, many books on the subject. It’s difficult to find a quote that I haven’t heard. And hard, indeed to find a book on the subject better than Frank’s DOWNFALL., for understanding what happened, and why. Optimist that I am, I continue to recommend reading, widely, for understanding. If you want to believe that the bombings were unnecessary, start with Gar Alperovitz/THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB. Or you can try some other titles I’ve listed above. Or you can not read anything on it at all, I guess.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

No. Warfare should have rules, and for the record, I oppose the use of nuclear weapons as much as the next guy. But these atomic bomb threads take the past 63 year’s worth of nuclear weaponry and project it backwards to 1945. They make it sound like the small 16- to 20-kiloton weapons dropped on Japan are the same thing as a 40-megaton hydrogen thermonuclear device that would vaporize everything within a 800-mile radius.

i read your previous post about kokura and it is obvious you know more than i do about this period in history. i think i actually agree with you, if you’re saying that it hardly matters whether the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were killed by atomic weapons or conventional ones. after all, we were firebombing japan’s cities and that certainly killed tons of civilians and broke the morale of the people. it’s hard to imagine how we could have won the war without doing that. so it’s not as if dropping an atom bomb on them represented a huge departure from our previous conduct of the war, in moral terms.

well, i’ve probably already stated a dozen misrepresentations of fact so i’d better quit while i’m ahead.

 

[GKC]

Fair enough. But it’s still a utilitarian argument. Legitimate if you have previously decided that the use of atomic weapons against civilian centers is justified if it will save lives over the long term.

Edwin

Precisely. As it must certainly did, by a factor of 10-20 to one. The immorality is the unnecessary loss of life. Vast numbers of lives

As to civilian centers, where was the headquarters of the Second Area Army? How many military troops were there, in Aug 45? And what island, located SW of this particular city drew its increasing reinforcements from there? And why was that of particular interest?

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Why?

If Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday and forever, why disallow data that reveals truth about moral teaching? Specifically, if Christ at any point in history willed the destruction of entire cities, then it is no possible to say that it is an absolute grave sin, or else you make Christ to be a sinner.

Therefore, the law of double effect can, in theory, still be applied, although one still has to make the balanced application that is necessary to justify an extreme action.

What is described in the OT has nothing to do with “double effect.” The death of every individual was expressly willed.

1. I do not think that these accounts should be taken literally as something willed by God. The deliberate slaughter of children (specifically mentioned in the OT accounts) clearly goes way beyond anything done at Hiroshima and seems to me to be inevitably contrary to natural law. However, for people who find this position too liberal, there are at least two more considerations:
2. God is described as having directly commanded these actions. God is the author of life. He can take it whenever He pleases. Human beings, however, do not have this right. Perhaps this is different when they are acting under direct divine command, but this to me smacks too much of divine command theory, which is just a kind of moral relativism. (One could also make the argument that God does not directly kill, but I don’t think it’s necessary to get into that here.)
3. Christians have always held that the New Testament gives us a fuller knowledge of God, and in particular of the fact that God’s nature is love. The “Reformed” wing of the Protestant Reformation (Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, etc.), denied this. But I think that they were terribly wrong. It’s ironic that I’m saying this, since I’ve often defended the OT. I think that the God of the OT is a God of mercy and grace. I do not in fact see a big difference in the way God is described in the OT and the NT. But in Christ we do see God’s love and mercy more fully, and Christ gave us very explicit commands as to how we are to behave. The OT directives to which you allude clearly contradict those commands. Even if you disagree with my previous points, the fact remains that Christians have no business acting as ministers of God’s wrath in the way described in the Old Testament. We are called to be ministers of God’s mercy and forgiveness. We have no business wiping out cities. We should be preaching the Gospel to them instead.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[bobzills]

The immorality is the unnecessary loss of life. Vast numbers of lives

What I have been focussing in on was the loss of the lives of non-combatants. It is clear that the dropping of an A Bomb on a city is immoral and a war crime because it is targetting innocent civilian non-combatants. As Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard have written:
“Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?”

 

[tomarin]

What I have been focussing in on was the loss of the lives of non-combatants. It is clear that the dropping of an A Bomb on a city is immoral and a war crime because it is targetting innocent civilian non-combatants.

what if they are working in munitions factories? doesn’t that make them fair game?

 

[pnewton]

1. I do not think that these accounts should be taken literally as something willed by God.

I have a hard time excepting that when the Bible says that God willed something, that it is not to be taken literally. This is unbelievable to me in light of the fact that in one case (Ai) a man and his family was killed by your literary device because he refused to follow the will of God. If the will of God as presented in Joshua was really just a personification of God by the author, then why did God require the death of that man? Furthermore, if the will of God is not to be taken literally, why except the same will expressed in the Ten Commandments, or any other account anywhere in scripture. I heard the same liberal interpretation of Scripture in seminary. Does the Bible lie when it says God spoke and said, “…”?

 

[Contarini]

Because the previous quote addressed surprise bombing. Were we supposed to give the Japanese advance notice of our targets when they didn’t give advance notice re: Pearl Harbor?

Are you seriously suggesting that one does not have to behave morally when facing an immoral enemy?

The two instances are completely different in a bunch of ways. What was treacherous and immoral about the Japanese attack was that it was in a time of peace. It was directed against military targets, though I’m sure I’ll be told that some bombs went astray and hit civilian targets, and since I don’t think the WWII Japanese were models of ethics the point is irrelevant. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed during a war–obviously if they had been purely military targets there would have been no obligation to give advance notice. And it has been pointed out that the U.S. did try to give advance notice in a manner that would not compromise the mission. The question is whether the mission was moral in the first place. As several people have pointed out on this thread, the nature of modern “total war” is that you can’t very well distinguish between military and civilian personnel. And that casts a serious shadow over the applicability of just war theory. If just war is impossible under modern conditions (or at least unwinnable), then the alternative is not to make war at all. I am not saying that this is true. I’m saying that the “total war” rhetoric Al Masetti and some others have used points in that direction. I would hope that they are wrong, and that just war is still possible.

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

Joshua 7:10

The LORD replied to Joshua: “Stand up. Why are you lying prostrate? 11 Israel has sinned: they have violated the covenant which I enjoined on them. They have stealthily taken goods subject to the ban, and have deceitfully put them in their baggage. 12 If the Israelites cannot stand up to their enemies, but must turn their back to them, it is because they are under the ban. I will not remain with you unless you remove from among you whoever has incurred the ban. 13 Rise, sanctify the people. Tell them to sanctify themselves before tomorrow, for the LORD, the God of Israel, says: You are under the ban, O Israel. You cannot stand up to your enemies until you remove from among you whoever has incurred the ban. 14 In the morning you must present yourselves by tribes. The tribe which the LORD designates shall come forward by clans; the clan which the LORD designates shall come forward by families; the family which the LORD designates shall come forward one by one. 15 He who is designated as having incurred the ban shall be destroyed by fire, with all that is his, because he has violated the covenant of the LORD and has committed a shameful crime in Israel.”

If someone claims to hear a message from God and did not really hear from God, what does that make him?