Atomic Bomb In WWII

[bobzills]

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

It can be argued that those who are working to supply arms are combatants, and should be subject to the same rules as combatants. I am speaking here of non-combatants, such as for one example, children of the age of 3 or 4 years old, and as well, there are many other examples.
Actually, in the case of dropping the A Bomb on Japan, it was completely unnecessary as well as immoral, because according to General Dwight D. Eisenhower:“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.”

 

[Contarini]

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, “…”?

I think I can defend my position quite well based on point 2. I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of the Book of Joshua. But Origen thought Joshua was not literal, and modern Biblical scholarship also has problems with its historicity (I do not uncritically accept such a skeptical approach, mind you–but it’s interesting that here ancient and modern interpretations coincide).

For me the turning point came when a convert (from the Druze) to Christianity in my church asked me to talk to her daughter, who was considering conversion to Christianity but was troubled by a lot of stuff in Christianity. She raised this issue and I realized that all the explanations and qualifications I had made for years were simply unpersuasive. (I don’t mean that this was the first time I’d questioned the subject, but it was the first time that I’d found myself simply unable to make these arguments.) The only answer I could make with integrity was “no way did God actually command this.”

Note by the way that Achan was not punished for showing mercy. He was punished for greed. Same with Saul in 1 Sam. 15, who was happy to slaughter women and children but wanted the king as a trophy.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

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?”

I seriously doubt it, though certainly the victors do get to define the criminals. But it certainly shows the dice-iness of war crime trials. The ones we held of the Japanese executed several high ranking officals with little or no even moral responsibilites for the crimes, and let large numbers of the culpable escape. This is not to say that no true war criminals were executed. But it was a mess from the start.

GKC

 

[bobzills]

I would hope that they are wrong, and that just war is still possible.

My personal opinion is that it is not possible to use the atomic bomb and have a just war at the same time. By its very nature, the Atomic bomb is necessarily a most anti-just war, anti-human, anti-civilisation, anti-spiritual, anti-life, outright evil thing ever created by man. It basically is a challenge to God, because it announces that we, as man, have within our power and our ability, the capability to destroy everything on the face of the earth that God has created.

 

[pnewton]

I think I can defend my position quite well based on point 2.

Actually point two does not bother me, and a more literal interpretation avoids another problem. Namely, that Joshua is still part of scripture. If it is a literary device, it is one that supports that the destruction of an entire city has happened and that it happened within the will of God, if not the direct order. Unless one nuances the scripture 180 degrees somehow, well, there it is. However, the law of double effect can explain the need to maintain the purity of a fickle nation in a time when the lure of idolatry was everwhere. Even without a literal interpretation, it is still part of scripture that the will of God can be viewed as requiring these extreme measures.

 

[beeliner]

According to John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations:
"A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

A casual reading of this quote might lead one to assume that Bolton was agreeing with the provisions of the treaty.

In fact, the exact opposite was true. He was saying that the provisions, and therefore the treaty itself, were totally unacceptable to the USA for the very reasons he stated.

Apart from that, justification of war on moral grounds is mostly an exercise in futility - war is intrinsically immoral.

 

[Caesar517]

My personal opinion is that it is not possible to use the atomic bomb and have a just war at the same time. By its very nature, the Atomic bomb is necessarily a most anti-just war, anti-human, anti-civilisation, anti-spiritual, anti-life, outright evil thing ever created by man. It basically is a challenge to God, because it announces that we, as man, have within our power and our ability, the capability to destroy everything on the face of the earth that God has created.

We have always have the power to “destroy everything on the face of the earth that God has created.” We have recently unlocked it (not a good thing, but unavoidable). God gave us this power when we created us. It is our mental ability. It is up to us to exibit good stewardship and use that power responsibly. Don’t mistake all potentially destructive technology as a challenge to God.

 

[Wolseley]

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.

Not entirely random. I picked Vercingetorix because I’m familiar with Caesar’s History of the Gallic War, which I have read many times.

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

Actually, it’s a signal that I’m getting bored with the debate, which, once again, goes nowhere. You won’t convince me, and I won’t convince you. So there we are.

Have a splendid evening.

 

[pnewton]

Actually, it’s a signal that I’m getting bored with the debate, which, once again, goes nowhere. You won’t convince me, and I won’t convince you. So there we are.

It is probably a good idea that we don’t all agree. We do not ever need to be so callous that we do not respect life. On the other hand, if it we all were like some here, evil would have reign and justice would only be an idea.

 

[GKC]

It can be argued that those who are working to supply arms are combatants, and should be subject to the same rules as combatants. I am speaking here of non-combatants, such as for one example, children of the age of 3 or 4 years old, and as well, there are many other examples.
Actually, in the case of dropping the A Bomb on Japan, it was completely unnecessary as well as immoral, because according to General Dwight D. Eisenhower:“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.”

One of the consequences of having all one’s books in one house, and one’s computer in another house, is a lag time, in doing stuff like this. Another consequence is an occasional use of a wrong term, which maybe no one noticed. Hasten the day when the books and computer are rejoined under one roof.

Frank among others) addresses this quote in DOWNFALL, in a lengthy note on p.332. Other conventional historians of the period make similar observations (Maddux, below).

Eisenhower made the statement above in two places, in 1948 (CRUSADE IN EUROPE) and 1963 (MANDATE FOR CHANGE). This quote is from 1948, the 1963 account was more detailed and more colorful. A couple of points:

Stimson kept detailed diaries that include a complete record of all discussions, of any nature, which he had on the bombs. This exchange is not mentioned. and it is not independent evidence of an opinion as stated prior to the use of the weapons, but after the war. And, in the 1948, but not the 1963 account, Eisenhower added “My views were merely personal and immediate reactions, they were not based on any analysis of the subject”.

Eisenhower had no particular insight into the Pacific theater, nor should he have. As far as is known, he had no access to Pacific Theater Magic or Ultra, either trafiic or summary. Nor should he have. Ina 12 July 1945 letter he wrote that he had not the slightest idea what would happen in the Pacific, nor was there any reason he should. He was the ETO commander. MacArthur or Nimitz had similarly no insight into the European Theater.

Nimitz’s opinion, postwar, is compared to Nimitz’s opinion, during the war, (as well as much more detailed consideration of Eisenhower’s words, and the improbablility of the circumstances being accurately recalled) in HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY:THE MYTHS OF THE REVISIONISTS, ed. by Robert James Maddux, in the first article (also written by Maddux). Nimitz, when briefed on the bomb, and that it would be most likely available in August, replied “That sounds fine, but this is only February. Can’t we get one sooner?”. And Nimitz was in favor of dropping the 3rd bomb, on Tokyo, if necessary. Citations and sources are found in HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY, p. 19. Eisenhower’s words are discussed on pp. 16-19.

Moral opposition to the use of the bombs, to the use of any bombs, to the use of any deadly force, for any or some reasons, are things of one sort. Facts of history are things of another sort. Generally, I only try to keep the facts straight. And generally I just recommend the books. Line by line refutations are tedious.

GKC

.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Keep in mind: “the agenda”.

There were no picket lines protesting Soviet nuclear weapons. All of objectors to U.S. nuclear weapons were moving for unilateral disarmament by the United States.

Or to quote some famous person of the period. “In the Soviet Union, we have freedom of speech: we are free to criticize Ronald Reagan.”

Yes, yes, I understand that ONLY the United States used nukes in actual combat. Twice.

Actually, we used nukes three times.

The third time was when we used a nuke to end the Korean War.

President Eisenhower ordered Atomic Annie, a 280 mm artillery piece to fire a nuke … in a suburb of Las Vegas. At a place called Frenchman’s Flat. In full view of the news media (called the “press” at the time). [The bleachers for the press are still there.] Then he ordered a bunch of the 280 mm cannons shipped to Korea. At the same time, the U.S. Air Force used B-29’s to drop fragmentation bombs on Chinese troops camping in the open in Korea … caused massive casualties.

The Communists got the idea. That if they persisted, they would get a full spread of nuclear artillery shells dropped precisely on their positions. [Actually, Eisenhower actually told them that, personally.]

Within a couple of weeks, the Korean War … well, it didn’t end … it still hasn’t officially ended. But there was a cease fire that still more or less holds.

 

[bobzills]

Eisenhower made the statement above in two places, in 1948 (CRUSADE IN EUROPE) and 1963 (MANDATE FOR CHANGE). This quote is from 1948, the 1963 account was more detailed and more colorful. .

Much later, in an interview with Newsweek magazine, President Eisenhower recalled his meeting with Stimpson: “…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

• Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
  I would assume that as President of the United States of America from 1953 to 1961, that President Eisenhower would have slightly more knowledge than the anonymous people here who say that the bomb was necessary to end the war.

 

[beeliner]

I would assume that as President of the United States of America from 1953 to 1961, that President Eisenhower would have slightly more knowledge than the anonymous people here who say that the bomb was necessary to end the war.

I would assume that as President of the United States of America from 1945 to 1953, that President Truman would have slightly more knowledge than the anonymous people here who say that the bomb was unnecessary to end the war.

There is no question that the Pacific war would have eventually ended in an Allied victory. An invasion of Japan would have likely killed hundreds of thousands on both sides, making the dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki a drop in the bucket by comparison. Also, you want quotes?

“With regard to unconditional surrender,…we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. Even if the war drags on and it will take much more bloodshed.” - Togo

“We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan’s power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us…The final decision of when and where to use the atomic bomb was up to me. Let there be no mistake about it, I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used…In deciding to use the bomb I wanted to make
sure that it would be used as a weapon of war in the manner prescribed by the laws of war. That meant I wanted it dropped on a military target…It was a terrible decision. But I made it. And I’d made it to save 250,000 boys from the United States and I’d make it again under similar circumstances. It stopped the Jap war…” -HST

“I never doubted [that Truman would use the bomb], nor have I ever doubted since that he was right…At any rate, there was never a moment’s discussion [privately between Churchill and Truman] as to whether the atomic bomb should be used or not. To avert a vast, indefinite butchery, to bring the war to an end, and give peace to the world…seemed, after all our toils and perils, a miracle of deliverance.” -Winston Churchill

“I felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the emperor and his military advisers, there must be administered a tremendous shock, which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the Empire. Such an effective shock would save many times the number of lives, both American and Japanese, that it would cost.” -Stimson

…and finally…

“This is the greatest thing in history. It’s time for us to get home.” -HST

Let me repeat though, I’m not alleging any issue of morality here. We are talking military strategy and tactics.

War is immoral.

 

[Al_Masetti]

All we had during WW2 were sledge hammers.

Now we have smart bombs and GPS guided bombs and unmanned drones with “eyes in the sky” linked by real-time communications satellites and precision guided missiles. During WW2, we had none of those.

We did start work on some of those things, but it wasn’t until 50 years later did those things arrive on the scene … and even then it took billions and billions of dollars over a half-century of difficult research, design, and testing to get to that point.

But back in WW2, the best we had was massed human wave tactics, massive artillery, thousand-plane raids for massed aerial bombardment, and that was it. By the end of World War II, in only four years, the United States had built a Navy that included 100 aircraft carriers of all sizes. (Now, by contrast we have 15 aircraft carriers … larger ones to be sure, but only 15.)

[in some countries the war started as early as the 1930’s … the United States got into it very late.]

In WW2, something like 33% of all Navy carrier-based pilots were killed in action. Something like 50% of the B-29 bombers were lost in action. During WW2, we lost one Navy submarine a month. The United States had a military of about 10 million men.

[President George H.W. Bush … father of our current President … was a U.S. Navy carrier pilot in WW2. He flew TBM Avenger torpedo/bombing planes. He was shot down twice and was also the youngest carrier pilot in the Navy. He once said that he was the sole surviving member of his squadron. Everyone else was killed in action.]

That’s what a war involves … and that was just from our side.

The army of the Soviet Union was much larger and took huge losses … millions and millions. Every country involved in WW2 took a phenomenal battering with enormous losses of men and national treasure including the loss of civilians. Countries of Eastern Europe were occupied by the Soviet Union until just recently. Parts of the Japanese home islands may be said to still be occupied by Russia.

It can be said that it took the world 50 years to recover.

World War II is still being analyzed in terms of the causes, the costs and even the battles. Classified files and archives on all sides, where they weren’t destroyed, are still being unearthed and studied and analyzed. A lot of people in power now just don’t want that material surfacing just yet.

World War II was a titanic struggle on a scale never seen before, fought by people … at both the grass roots and at the leadership levels … who never imagined anything so horrible could come to pass.

 

[GKC]

Much later, in an interview with Newsweek magazine, President Eisenhower recalled his meeting with Stimpson: “…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

• Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
  I would assume that as President of the United States of America from 1953 to 1961, that President Eisenhower would have slightly more knowledge than the anonymous people here who say that the bomb was necessary to end the war.

Stimson.

The point is, as Maddux demonstrates in some detail, that there is good reason to doubt the accuracy of the assertion, or Eisenhower’s memory, or something.

Eisenhower had no particular knowledge of the Japanese situation, as Maddux noted. And as Eisenhower noted, in July 1945.

Books are useful things.

GKC

 

[JimG]

Much later, in an interview with Newsweek magazine, President Eisenhower recalled his meeting with Stimpson: “…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”

• Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

Yet Ike was not apparently opposed to the use of nuclear weapons as a matter of principle, since it was under his presidency that the U.S. had a policy of “massive retaliation,” with respect to the USSR. Any attack by the USSR on any European U.S. ally would be construed as an attack on the U.S. and would subject the USSR to massive nuclear retaliation from B-52’s always on alert and carrying large nukes. To be effective, such a policy had to be credible, with the president willing to carry it out.

The policy did work in preventing USSR aggression in Europe. But JFK used the “missile gap” between US and USSR as part of his campaign for the presidency, promising to develop U.S. ICBM’s. (The gap turned out in retrospect to be not much of a gap.)

 

[bobzills]

…Let me repeat though, I’m not alleging any issue of morality here. We are talking military strategy and tactics.

War is immoral.

I agree that there are immoral things that occur in just about any war, and that many wars are immoral and do not really fit into the just war criteria. For example, I think that any war where atomic bombs are dropped would be immoral. However, I think that it is morally wrong to kill civilian non-combatants so as to reduce the number of combatant casualties.

 

[bobzills]

Eisenhower had no particular knowledge of the Japanese situation, as Maddux noted.

As president of the United States of America, I am sure that he had a basis for his opinion in 1963, that the use of the A Bomb against Japan was not necessary.

 

[GKC]

I agree that there are immoral things that occur in just about any war, and that many wars are immoral and do not really fit into the just war criteria. For example, I think that any war where atomic bombs are dropped would be immoral. However, I think that it is morally wrong to kill civilian non-combatants so as to reduce the number of combatant casualties.

The lives saved from the early ending of the war included combatants, non-combatants, civilians, military, Japanese, Allied, Russians and captive Asians, young, old and in between. .

GKC

 

[Contarini]

A casual reading of this quote might lead one to assume that Bolton was agreeing with the provisions of the treaty.

In fact, the exact opposite was true. He was saying that the provisions, and therefore the treaty itself, were totally unacceptable to the USA for the very reasons he stated.

Apart from that, justification of war on moral grounds is mostly an exercise in futility - war is intrinsically immoral.

You are a pacifist then?

I ask only because some folks on this thread seem to take the approach that war is necessarily a nasty thing and so we shouldn’t ask too many moral questions about the means used to win it. It is this position that I will fight while there is breath in my body.

Edwin