Atomic Bomb In WWII

[Al_Masetti]

To the Japanese, the battle of Okinawa was a morale booster; it went just as desired. It was precisely what they planned for the defense of the rest of the home island to be: massive casualties, on both sides, which in themselves represented the “decisive victory” (part of the Japanese military psyche), in order to reduce America’s will and morale, prior to negotiating favorable terms for the end of the war. This, with the addition of vastly larger miitary forces available, and the use of far more civilians in suicide roles, was what was facing OLYMPIC and CORONET. Mega-deaths.

For a harrowing account of what happened on Okinawa, and what awaited an invasion of the remaining home islands, read Feifer’s TENNOZAN.

This is correct.

The Japanese strategy at Okinawa was to lure the Americans into landing without opposition … to get all the troops onto the beach … and then there would be determined opposition which would cause all the U.S. Navy ships to pull in close to the shore line to provide direct fire support and aircraft carrier support.

The tightly packed ships would then offer easy targets for the Japanese suicide planes.

And that is exactly what happened.

We shot down huge numbers of Japanese planes but enough got through to sink a large number of U.S. Navy ships, damage many others and kill more than 5000 U.S. Navy sailors.

Between the losses of the Marines and the Army in the many small ground battles … and the Navy’s terrible experiences … and the suicides by civilians on Okinawa … and the huge ongoing losses of the B-29’s in the air battle, the U.S. was anticipating horrendous losses in the direct landings on the “home islands”.

After the surrender, the U.S. occupation forces in Japan were shocked by the huge stockpiles of suicide planes, suicide submarines, suicide speed boats (and gasoline to run them) … there were advanced technology weapons derived in part from German work with jet engines. There were submarines that were the largest in the world (the “I” class that carried three airplanes). And later on, apparently we learned that the Japanese Navy had made significant progress in a deployable nuclear weapon.

 

[RobHom]

I struggle with this. Is a land invasion truly less evil? We would have had to destroy and capture cities as well. Would the Japanese have used a scorched-earth policy? I think a full-force land invasion would have resulted in more innocent loss of life than the two atom bombs did.

A full fledged land invasion would have resulted in far more civilian deaths than those caused by the bombs. See the article here: taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2008/03/29/2003407524
and here: nytimes.com/2005/06/20/international/asia/20okinawa.html

You would have probably ended up with 25% to 50% of the entire population of Japan and its possessions committing suicide or seppuku, a Japanese ritual suicide artelino.com/articles/seppuku.asp that is considered right and proper in their society.

Second guessing what was right or wrong 60+ years ago is not really appropriate… I do believe that even the Japanese themselves have admitted that while the bombs were devastating, fewer Japanese died and there was less overall destruction to Japan than would have occurred had there been a full scale invasion via land and sea.

The Catholic Church has never advocated the use of Nuclear weapons.

 

[VociMike]

It’s worth addressing also the “most benign” course, that of blockading the Japanese until they surrendered. As it was, in some urban areas the people were down to 800 (!) calories per day. An ongoing blockade through the winter of 1945/46 would have resulted in mass starvation, with the military and elites getting first pickings of the available food (see North Korea for an example of how that works).

 

[Brian_Millar]

Apparently the battle of Okinawa, which ended just weeks before the surrender, did nothing to convince them of the futility of continuing and they lost about as many civilians in that battle as in Hiroshima. Japanese soldiers did not surrender in any meaningful numbers; that was simply anathema in their culture. As someone else said: they were unconvinced by the first bomb and (if you read accounts about the intrigue involved) almost didn’t surrender even after the second one.

Ender

Keep in mind, I said “in my opinion” if one is to state the Churches official position, they must have some official documentation to back them up, otherwise it’s only speculation.

The targets were not at all military or tactical, they were only meant as a display of power, nothing more. I still feel we should have taken that chance with the demonstration. We as a country are still paying for that mistake 60+ years later, it is being used as an example our present and past enemies use in their propaganda campaign. The lives lost afterwards clearly outnumber the lives that would have been lost in a conventional attack on the country, all because our enemies consider themselves just, fighting the enemy, the only one in the world to have used nuculear weapons to destroy a civilian population.

You guys really should take note of the bigger picture here, sure we ended the war earlier but we have also paid a very high price for it and continue to do so to this day.

 

[GKC]

Keep in mind, I said “in my opinion” if one is to state the Churches official position, they must have some official documentation to back them up, otherwise it’s only speculation.

The targets were not at all military or tactical, they were only meant as a display of power, nothing more. I still feel we should have taken that chance with the demonstration. We as a country are still paying for that mistake 60+ years later, it is being used as an example our present and past enemies use in their propaganda campaign. The lives lost afterwards clearly outnumber the lives that would have been lost in a conventional attack on the country, all because our enemies consider themselves just, fighting the enemy, the only one in the world to have used nuculear weapons to destroy a civilian population.

You guys really should take note of the bigger picture here, sure we ended the war earlier but we have also paid a very high price for it and continue to do so to this day.

I find the theoretical price of several million additional deaths rather high, in itself.

For a thorough discussion of the uselessness of the idea of a demonstraton, see Newman/TRUMAN AND THE CULT OF HIROSHIMA. Chap. 3, IIRC.

GKC

 

[VociMike]

Keep in mind, I said “in my opinion” if one is to state the Churches official position, they must have some official documentation to back them up, otherwise it’s only speculation.

The targets were not at all military or tactical, they were only meant as a display of power, nothing more. I still feel we should have taken that chance with the demonstration.

Maybe. In that case they may have firebombed Hiroshima instead, maybe on the same night as the demonstration. Hard to see one as preferable to the other. Besided, they got a demonstration, and it was Hiroshima, and they didn’t surrender.

We as a country are still paying for that mistake 60+ years later, it is being used as an example our present and past enemies use in their propaganda campaign. The lives lost afterwards clearly outnumber the lives that would have been lost in a conventional attack on the country, all because our enemies consider themselves just, fighting the enemy, the only one in the world to have used nuculear weapons to destroy a civilian population.

I’ve never heard that theory before. All our enemies since 1945 have fought us harder because of the atomic bombings? Do you have any evidence for this?

You guys really should take note of the bigger picture here, sure we ended the war earlier but we have also paid a very high price for it and continue to do so to this day.

Aren’t you making a political argument here, which is not the same as the moral argument that has been at the center of this thread?

 

[Brian_Millar]

How often have you ever heard from foriegners that hated Americans pointing out the bombs we dropped. Right now we face an enemy that is striving to accumulate nuculear weapons. Once they get them, don’t you think they will consider themselves justified using it against America entirely due to the fact, we have used them in the past ourselves.

It’s simple observation here. So, we dropped the first one, they refused to surrender, why is that? It’s because we reinforced their resolve against us, that, and there was some debate on their side to determin if we had more then one of them. What do you think would happen if after the second one they still didn’t surrender, we now are facing an even more determined enemy especially since we did not have a 3rd bomb. It was a huge gamble, we managed to bluff them into thinking we had more which is the bottom line to the strategy.

 

[Brendan]

Keep in mind, I said “in my opinion” if one is to state the Churches official position, they must have some official documentation to back them up, otherwise it’s only speculation.

Here you go.

The Council of Trent on the 5th Commandment

The Prohibitory Part of this Commandment

Exceptions: The Killing Of Animals
With regard to the prohibitory part, it should first be taught what kinds of killing are not forbidden by this Commandment. It is not prohibited to kill animals; for if God permits man to eat them, it is also lawful to kill them. When, says St. Augustine, we hear the words, “Thou shalt not kill,” we do not understand this of the fruits of the earth, which are insensible, nor of irrational animals, which form no part of human society.

Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Killing In A Just War
In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Is that clear enough?

 

[GKC]

How often have you ever heard from foriegners that hated Americans pointing out the bombs we dropped. Right now we face an enemy that is striving to accumulate nuculear weapons. Once they get them, don’t you think they will consider themselves justified using it against America entirely due to the fact, we have used them in the past ourselves.

It’s simple observation here. So, we dropped the first one, they refused to surrender, why is that? It’s because we reinforced their resolve against us, that, and there was some debate on their side to determin if we had more then one of them. What do you think would happen if after the second one they still didn’t surrender, we now are facing an even more determined enemy especially since we did not have a 3rd bomb. It was a huge gamble, we managed to bluff them into thinking we had more which is the bottom line to the strategy.

The only resolve that mattered was that of the war party, which was controlling the government, particularly that of the Army minister, Gen. Anami. None of the war party were affected by Hiroshima at all. Nor by Nagasaki, to any degree. The peace advocates in the “Big Six” who ruled the country were shocked and attempted to argue that the bombs made it impossible to continue the effort to achieve the decisive battle within the home islands, to inflict such losses on the American invaders as to permit a more satisfactory negotiated end to the war. After Nagasaki, it took the Emperor to break the stalemate by directing acceptance of the Potsdam statement .And even then, the government faced an attempted coup from midlevel officers, who assassinated several individuals, in an attempt to “rescue” the Emperor from his “betrayers” and continue the war. See JAPAN’S LONGEST DAY, or any good general history covering the end of the war, such as Hoyt’s JAPAN’S WAR or Spector’s EAGLE AGAINST THE SUN.

And the scheduled date for the arrival of a 3rd bomb, destined for Tokyo, to the 509th Composite Group on Tinian, was 24 Aug. Groves, when asked what the schedule for delivery of follow-on bombs would be, said that by Sep he would be able to deliver 3 a month, and more by Dec. So, by the proposed date of the OLYMPIC invasion, we would have had maybe 6 additional bombs in hand, and Tokyo would have been looking a lot like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Subjects like this require some historical knowledge, to mix in with assumptions and abstract principles. Helps to establish context.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

One thing is for sure - once you’re in the military, you’ve got to obey orders; if that were not true, the military would be chaos, as some might suggest it is anyway.

That being the case, the responsibility would seem to fall on the commander-in-chief, in this case president Truman

Well no. That’s the “Nuremberg Defense” which was rightly rejected in the case of the Nazis. If your superior officer gives you an immoral order, you disobey and take the consequences.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The use of the atomic bomb was not immoral in World War II.

That is the subject of this thread.

You say that your understanding is that the use of the atomic bomb is immoral.

But the topic of this thread is use of the Atomic Bomb in WWII.

So, it just seems that you are using retroactive morality … and a half-century after the fact, at that.

What do you mean by “retroactive morality”? Do you think morality changes over time?

I accept of course that some things are moral in certain circumstances and not in others. But the claim I and others are making is precisely that this particular action was and is always wrong, regardless of circumstances. Since you call this “retroactive morality,” I don’t know how to conclude otherwise than that you are a thoroughgoing moral relativist who thinks that there is no unchanging moral standard valid at all times and places.

If someone posted a thread on the Holocaust, would it be retroactive morality to say that the Holocaust was wrong because genocide is always evil? (I’m not claiming that Hiroshima and the Holocaust were equally evil–I’m using a “reductio ad absurdum” to point out the consequences of what you are saying.)

Edwin

 

[didymus]

One justification: in WW2 almost the entire populations of Japan & Germany were mobilised to support the war effort and the bombing campaigns against both was at least partly motivated by a desire to “break the will” of the population to fight on.

There was some of this in Germany but very little because traitors were viciously punished, especially mayors of towns who tried to surrender.

In Japan there may have been something to the view that there were no civilians since the whole population were expected to fight and die for the Emperor when the invasion came.

One alternative I never hear mentioned: the Allies had it in their power to totally blockade Japan, forcing them to starve ignonimously rather than die nobly. Of course, that would have left at least half of Japan in the hands of the USSR.

 

[Contarini]

In Japan there may have been something to the view that there were no civilians since the whole population were expected to fight and die for the Emperor when the invasion came.

Even if the Japanese didn’t recognize the existence of a civilian population, were we justified in agreeing with them?

The bottom line is that children are always civilians. It doesn’t matter what their government says. Governments don’t have the right to override natural law.

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

What do you mean by “retroactive morality”? Do you think morality changes over time?

Yes, or at least the circumstances change enough to make it appear so. That is the danger of using our 21st century mindset to judge the past. Some examples that pop in mind are the destruction of entire cities by by the occupying armies of Israel, the Church’s position on the liberal use of the death penalty, the use of physical pain on heretics.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, or at least the circumstances change enough to make it appear so.

Part of sound reasoning, whether theoretical or practical, is distinguishing between appearance and reality. And this is nowhere more important than here.

It is simply impossible to be an orthodox Christian and deny the existence of an unchanging moral standard. This is, properly understood, to deny the existence of God as Christians have worshiped Him for 2000 years.

Some examples that pop in mind are the destruction of entire cities by by the occupying armies of Israel,

Yes, this is difficult. I have addressed it earlier in this thread.

the Church’s position on the liberal use of the death penalty,

But obviously the circumstances in which the death penalty ought to be used might change. This really isn’t a relevant example. Insofar as Catholics today believe that the death penalty is intrinsically wrong, then we can talk about a real change in belief about what is right or wrong.

the use of physical pain on heretics.

I would say that this was always wrong. Many Catholics would disagree with me.

But of course I did not deny that some things are right in some circumstances and wrong in others. What I claimed was that some things are always wrong, Period.

Edwin

 

[VociMike]

I think it’s worthwhile to try and lay out again the non-atomic alternatives available in 1945.

1. Blockade. Will result in mass starvation, and in an “undefeated” Japan (“we were never defeated on the battlefield!”). Just like Germany in 1918. See rise of Hitler for likely long-term outcome of this mentality.
2. Land invasion. Millions of Japanese sent to the battle lines to die, or ordered to commit suicide (see Okinawa). Millions more killed by being in the path of battle, and through starvation.
3. Conventional bombing. Countless deaths by starvation, bombing, fire.

And in each and every scenario, some 5000 Chinese and other Asians are dying every single day.

And any surrender that is not unconditional will almost certainly, especially in the view of 1945, result in the rise of a Japanese Hitler, condemning the next generation to fight the war all over again, but this time with the weapons of the 1960s/70s. And if nukes weren’t used in 1945, who is positive they wouldn’t be used in 1965 or 1975, when those in power are the generation that fought and died in 1941-45?

Anybody who claims to see an obviously “cleaner” solution to this, from the point of view of 1945, is IMHO deluded or dishonest.

 

[JimG]

An NPR interview with Stephen Walker, the author of “Shockwave” as well as two of the crew members of the Enola Gay, can be found here. The sound player link is just above the image of the book.

 

[GKC]

One justification: in WW2 almost the entire populations of Japan & Germany were mobilised to support the war effort and the bombing campaigns against both was at least partly motivated by a desire to “break the will” of the population to fight on.

There was some of this in Germany but very little because traitors were viciously punished, especially mayors of towns who tried to surrender.

In Japan there may have been something to the view that there were no civilians since the whole population were expected to fight and die for the Emperor when the invasion came.

One alternative I never hear mentioned: the Allies had it in their power to totally blockade Japan, forcing them to starve ignonimously rather than die nobly. Of course, that would have left at least half of Japan in the hands of the USSR.

I mention it, regularly, as one of the greater evils avoided by ending the war.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think it’s worthwhile to try and lay out again the non-atomic alternatives available in 1945.

1. Blockade. Will result in mass starvation, and in an “undefeated” Japan (“we were never defeated on the battlefield!”). Just like Germany in 1918. See rise of Hitler for likely long-term outcome of this mentality.
2. Land invasion. Millions of Japanese sent to the battle lines to die, or ordered to commit suicide (see Okinawa). Millions more killed by being in the path of battle, and through starvation.
3. Conventional bombing. Countless deaths by starvation, bombing, fire.

And in each and every scenario, some 5000 Chinese and other Asians are dying every single day.

And any surrender that is not unconditional will almost certainly, especially in the view of 1945, result in the rise of a Japanese Hitler, condemning the next generation to fight the war all over again, but this time with the weapons of the 1960s/70s. And if nukes weren’t used in 1945, who is positive they wouldn’t be used in 1965 or 1975, when those in power are the generation that fought and died in 1941-45?

Anybody who claims to see an obviously “cleaner” solution to this, from the point of view of 1945, is IMHO deluded or dishonest.

I agree. And, point for point, so does Newman in TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT. Which I repeat in recommending.

GKC

 

[Brian_Millar]

The only resolve that mattered was that of the war party, which was controlling the government, particularly that of the Army minister, Gen. Anami. None of the war party were affected by Hiroshima at all. Nor by Nagasaki, to any degree. The peace advocates in the “Big Six” who ruled the country were shocked and attempted to argue that the bombs made it impossible to continue the effort to achieve the decisive battle within the home islands, to inflict such losses on the American invaders as to permit a more satisfactory negotiated end to the war. After Nagasaki, it took the Emperor to break the stalemate by directing acceptance of the Potsdam statement .And even then, the government faced an attempted coup from midlevel officers, who assassinated several individuals, in an attempt to “rescue” the Emperor from his “betrayers” and continue the war. See JAPAN’S LONGEST DAY, or any good general history covering the end of the war, such as Hoyt’s JAPAN’S WAR or Spector’s EAGLE AGAINST THE SUN.

And the scheduled date for the arrival of a 3rd bomb, destined for Tokyo, to the 509th Composite Group on Tinian, was 24 Aug. Groves, when asked what the schedule for delivery of follow-on bombs would be, said that by Sep he would be able to deliver 3 a month, and more by Dec. So, by the proposed date of the OLYMPIC invasion, we would have had maybe 6 additional bombs in hand, and Tokyo would have been looking a lot like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Subjects like this require some historical knowledge, to mix in with assumptions and abstract principles. Helps to establish context.

GKC

I’m X Army, I know how the war machine works so I have some qualifications on this matter, don’t discount them. My argument if taken seriously 60+ years ago results in an entire city never being destroyed. The results would have been the same, the war would have ended, this time with less bloodshed, this time we are not considered the bad guys because we at least warned them of what was to come, this time we wouldn’t be still paying for that mistake.

You can choose to play arm chair general all you want, the facts are the facts, and they are grim. I would hate to think the majority still thinks it was OK to make this call here, that we have not learned from our mistakes, that we are losing lives to this day, all due to people like you that opt to make themselves appear to be within the popular consensus.