Atomic Bomb In WWII

[JimG]

I would argue that it is morally wrong, according to my understanding of Catholic teaching, to target civilians and non-combatants. I am not restricting the argument to the use of atomic weapons.

I think that is a correct understanding of Catholic moral teaching. In that case, much of the conduct of WW-II was not in accord with Catholic moral teaching. Neither side at that time, gave so much weight to the use of nuclear weapons as we do today. It was a new weapon, more destructive than others; most did not see it as a qualitative difference in warfare.

Max Hastings has a new book on the final days of the war with Japan; “Retribution,” I think, is the title. He mentions that the U.S. experience in the invasion of Okinawa and the horrendous casualties suffered endowed everyone with thoughts of what the invasion of the homeland would entail.

(I haven’t read it, but saw his interview on BookTV. Currently I am reading his account of the D-Day invasion, “Overlord,” which is interesting in that he provides accounts of the situation from both the Allied and German viewpoints.)

 

[Al_Masetti]

japanprobe.com/?p=2100

This is the WW2 Japanese atomic bomb project.

If instead of detonating the test article on an island or a barge, they had packed it into the submarine and detonated it under the U.S. fleet at Okinawa, the rest of the war might have taken a different course.

The U.S. invasion would have been delayed and the Japanese would have been able to produce more of the bombs to delivery by submarine to various places including the USSR and Hawaii and the West Coast of the U.S.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Specifically, here would be my strategy and this would actually work with the least amount of casualties.

Analyze the reason the enemy continues to do battle even though their allies have all fallen. The result would be over honor and a mislead belief in the divine nature of their supreem leader.

Dispell those beliefs by getting the truth out there, that there is no honor being served by continuing the battle/war, that the person they think is divine by nature is in fact only a mere mortal with mortal frailities. Prove this to the people by bringing to the surface that individuals (the emperor) is indeed corrupt, that from the very beginning, honor was not being served through the very tactics of how they were waging their war.

Furthermore, show the atrocities committed by the Nazi’s, this clearly will show the Japanese people their alliance was with an evil empire, that their ascociation with them was dishonoring them by it’s very nature.

Open up communication to the point where the public in general has access to unfiltered media, thus proving to them exactly what is and has been going on.

Furthermore, make it very clear that our intentions are not about dominating their society, that we prefer a free and peacful Japan rather then it’s present regime, of which has led them down this dark path.

Bottom line, let the people themselves decide if they desire peace or if they desire dishonor.

Deliver these messages through what ever means we have at our disposal, the war ends peacfully, no need for the nukes, it is ended.

 

[JimG]

Deliver these messages through what ever means we have at our disposal, the war ends peacfully, no need for the nukes, it is ended.

This is 1944 we are talking about. No TV, no internet. Radio often failed in wartime conditions. Allied pilots tried warning populations by *leaflet drops *before bomb runs. Decades of Japanese government propoganda was not going to be overcome by a few days, weeks or months of PR efforts. The conditions were then what they were then, not what they are now.

 

[bobzills]

Specifically, here would be my strategy and this would actually work with the least amount of casualties.

Analyze the reason the enemy continues to do battle even though their allies have all fallen. The result would be over honor and a mislead belief in the divine nature of their supreem leader.

Dispell those beliefs by getting the truth out there, that there is no honor being served by continuing the battle/war, that the person they think is divine by nature is in fact only a mere mortal with mortal frailities. Prove this to the people by bringing to the surface that individuals (the emperor) is indeed corrupt, that from the very beginning, honor was not being served through the very tactics of how they were waging their war.

Furthermore, show the atrocities committed by the Nazi’s, this clearly will show the Japanese people their alliance was with an evil empire, that their ascociation with them was dishonoring them by it’s very nature.

Open up communication to the point where the public in general has access to unfiltered media, thus proving to them exactly what is and has been going on.

Furthermore, make it very clear that our intentions are not about dominating their society, that we prefer a free and peacful Japan rather then it’s present regime, of which has led them down this dark path.

Bottom line, let the people themselves decide if they desire peace or if they desire dishonor.

Deliver these messages through what ever means we have at our disposal, the war ends peacfully, no need for the nukes, it is ended.

This looks like a pretty good plan.

 

[RWMorris]

This looks like a pretty good plan.

Bob, you truly can’t be serious. Think about it.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Bob, you truly can’t be serious. Think about it.

Bob and Brian should be asked for very specific details on how the word would be passed on the Japanese civilian population.

Very specific.

Very.

Specific.

Which media.

Which radio stations.

[consider that even today, the internet doesn’t work very well … as in Georgia, where the Russians are doing cyber attacks … as in China, where the government controls the internet.]

[consider the enormous distances in the Pacific War. Radio stations have very short ranges.]

So we need from Bob and Brian very detailed specifics.

 

[stevegravy]

This looks like a pretty good plan.

Originally Posted by Brian Millar
Specifically, here would be my strategy and this would actually work with the least amount of casualties.

Analyze the reason the enemy continues to do battle even though their allies have all fallen. The result would be over honor and a mislead belief in the divine nature of their supreem leader.

Dispell those beliefs by getting the truth out there, that there is no honor being served by continuing the battle/war, that the person they think is divine by nature is in fact only a mere mortal with mortal frailities. Prove this to the people by bringing to the surface that individuals (the emperor) is indeed corrupt, that from the very beginning, honor was not being served through the very tactics of how they were waging their war.

Furthermore, show the atrocities committed by the Nazi’s, this clearly will show the Japanese people their alliance was with an evil empire, that their ascociation with them was dishonoring them by it’s very nature.

Open up communication to the point where the public in general has access to unfiltered media, thus proving to them exactly what is and has been going on.

Furthermore, make it very clear that our intentions are not about dominating their society, that we prefer a free and peacful Japan rather then it’s present regime, of which has led them down this dark path.

Bottom line, let the people themselves decide if they desire peace or if they desire dishonor.

Deliver these messages through what ever means we have at our disposal, the war ends peacfully, no need for the nukes, it is ended.

This looks like a pretty good plan.

Also:…The alies could have surrendered to Japan that would end the war without any civilian casulties except those who would die under the administration of a post WWII world with Japan in control.

 

[Brian_Millar]

At the time, the Japanese were considered sub-human by the allies, we had such a miserable propaganda structure in place, this was a huge part of why they continued to fight on, we demonized them and so they did the same to us.

All we needed to do was make sure that they either knew the frequencies we were going to broadcast at, or that we knew them and could override them in the process by broadcasting from a more powerful source, ie. flying over their cities.

Additional thought on this one, we could have gotten a message to them that we were going to do a demonstration with our nukes and gave them the coordinates for the location we were going to do it at, that they should set up what ever they needed to be there to get accurate results so they could measure the destruction, which would have proven to them our abilities, again without taking innocent lives.

I give our abilites back then alot of credit, the problem is, we were letting the wrong people make the decisions and this end result could have been easily avoided, not through force, but through reason.

I can take this into the same context as to the war we are fighting iin the middle east, it’s not about power and abilities, it’s about theologies, it’s about getting the truth out there, for if the enemy knew of our true intentions rather then believing in the lies they are being told about us, they would opt to stop fighting and go home peacfully. We are just now getting this point accross and both sides have paid a very heavy price. If you ask most Americans at the beginning of the war, they would all tell you that we were doing a good thing, we were getting rid of the people’s of Iraq’s enemy, Saddam Hussain, that we genuinly want them to prosper and we loath the oppression and atrocities committed to them by their current government. We also had to insure to them that unlike the first war, we were not going to jump in, take care of biz, and pull out, leaving them to fend for themselves and at the mercy of any corrupt organization that seizes power. Even to this day, our intentions are still the same, no soldier looks forward to fighting this war, not one of them wants to be in Iraq, they all want to go home but they have a job to do, so they bravely continue the battle.

 

[JimG]

I think it is difficult to judge the motives of an entire generation or era without being immersed in the details of it. Before giving our 2008 conclusions about what ‘should’ have been done, we ought to spend some time being immersed in the history of the events that we are critiquing and what was actually possible at the time.

I can imagine some time in the year 2135 perhaps, that some other internet forum members will be discussing why the U.S. allowed such widespread and extensive abortion, killing off entire generations. I can imagine that they will say, “why didn’t they educate the populace? Why didn’t they elucidate the details of what abortion actually does? Why did they just complacently allow millions of deaths to go on indefinitely?”

Perhaps we would have a harder time justifying our own generation than the WW-II generation would in explaining themselves.

 

[JimG]

Here are a couple of interesting audio links for anyone who is interested.

Hiroshima’s ‘Shockwave’ 60 Years Later, an “NPR Talk of the Nation” interview including two crew members of the Enola Gay.

NPR interview with Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay.

To hear the audio programs, you will need to click on “Listen Now,” or on the audio link just below.

 

[Al_Masetti]

All we needed to do was make sure that they either knew the frequencies we were going to broadcast at, or that we knew them and could override them in the process by broadcasting from a more powerful source, ie. flying over their cities.

Additional thought on this one, we could have gotten a message to them that we were going to do a demonstration with our nukes and gave them the coordinates for the location we were going to do it at, that they should set up what ever they needed to be there to get accurate results so they could measure the destruction, which would have proven to them our abilities, again without taking innocent lives.

I give our abilites back then alot of credit, the problem is, we were letting the wrong people make the decisions and this end result could have been easily avoided, not through force, but through reason.
.

The technology of radio broadcasts to Japan from airplanes flying overhead was WAY beyond the technology of the time period. The technology simply didn’t exist.

Airplanes that attempted to linger over Japan were attacked by Japanese air force interceptors. Just not feasible to do that.

Airplanes that attempted to linger over Japan also were targeted by anti-aircraft artillery, which was very effective. AND planes that stay too long over Japan ran out of fuel and were unable to return to base.

The one propaganda technique that could be done, was dropping leaflets. And we dropped millions of leaflets warning them of what was to come and to get out of the way.

President Truman made at least one radio broadcast from a ground based station warning the Japanese leadership of the upcoming atomic bombing. They ignored him.

Contrary to some current popular belief, very few people had ever heard of an atomic bomb. So a public warning using that term (“atomic bomb”) would not have meant much.

AND, we did do a demonstration … at Hiroshima. And the Japanese leadership refused to surrender. Even after Nagasaki , there was a big fight and an attempted coup by hardliners who wanted to keep fighting. They knew where we intended to land on the beaches of the Japanese Homeland and they shipped in hundreds of thousands of well-armed troops to fight us.

So … do you have any other ideas on how we could have ended the war without the atomic bomb?

 

[JimG]

Max Hastings, who wrote a book on the subject, has said that he thinks that Truman should have made his warning much more specific. It’s unclear whether the Japanese leadership understood him to be making a threat of continued fire-bombing, or of something else entirely. So maybe he could have spelled it out in more detail.

But the A-bomb was new to everyone, Truman included. He didn’t even know about the Manhattan Project while he was VP.

And I seriously doubt that a more detailed warning would have made any difference. And it can certainly be argued that continued fire-bombing of Japanese cities sufficient to induce surrender, would have been no more moral than the A-bomb.

Truman’s Secretary of War (yes, that was the title at the time) seems to have been the only one in the cabinet who briefly entertained some prospect for ending the war without the use of the bomb. There had apparently been a few Japanese ‘feelers’ regarding a negotiated surrender, but nothing that was remotely close to meeting the Allied terms.

 

[geezerbob]

I’ve asked this before, hoping to get a satisfactory response from those who try apply 2008 hindsight to the events of 1941-1945.

When an entire country is involved in a war effort, how do you separate military from civilian and determine the morality of killing either or both. Is the civilian who makes ammunition any less a legitimate target than the soldier who fires it? Both are necessary in order to wage war. Without either, the effort fizzles. Should the U-boats have ignored the liberty ships which were hauling supplies and manned by civilians and attacked only warships which were manned by military personnel? Would the Ford worker building airplanes have been a legitimate target? The Packard factory making fighter engines? The Chrysler employee producing tanks?

It’s easy to sit back in our 21st century world, watch a relatively small military attack with precision bombs, and assume that that capability always existed. It didn’t. Something like 10% of the bombs dropped during WWII came within 5 miles of the intended target, and our own losses were horrific. To me, it’s understandable that Truman would have used any means available to end the war against an enemy who worshipped their emperor as a god, considered themselves to be superior, Americans to be subhuman, and who were willing to fight to the death, both civilian and military, to defend their homeland.

 

[joe_clark]

I sincerely hope and pray that, much more than trying to find out the decision making process for exploding an atomic bomb over a population of people during war time, that we do not forget the obvious. The death and destruction that follow, not to mention if you have a conscience, and what that did to many of us. If we learn the lesson from this low point in history, then it may benefit the future generations, if we are to have future generations.

It may have been a high point for the U.S. military, but it was a low point for human beings on this planet. If you have the opportunity to visit Japan and the shrine to the thousands of those who died, many that were infants and children who had no part in the war, you will be better off than reading the propaganda of that day.

We did it in WWII and we are doing it again in Iraq. Someone here said about demonizing the enemy and we are good at that. If you watch the old WWII movies, all Japanese people have big buck teeth and coke bottle glasses. In Iraq, the “terrorrist” wears a turban, smokes and rides a camel.

I give you abu ghraib and in door number 1, electrodes to the testicles. If you listen to the testimony of the convicted American soldiers, (and we shouldn’t justify or be proud of) the prisoners were easily abused. It became sport. If one of your fellow soldiers was killed in a mission, the next day you just simply tortured one of them to exact revenge and or get your fustration out. The soldiers stated they knew it was wrong and against the Geneva Convention, but they were told that the prisoners were subhuman and that the rules are, there’s no rules.

Per my father who served in the Medic Corp Army/Air Force in WWII, at the least, the American soldiers attempted to treat the POW’s with some semblience of human dignity because becoming the people you were fighting against was not an option.

For me, holding a draft card in the early seventies and with God’s grace was not called, because I would have went and probably came back in a body bag. Remember the VC the gooks ect. The demonizing, the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident that started a war? Sound familliar like Iraq reasons for going to war? Today you and I can take a vacation to the Hanoi Hilton and drink knee highs with our friends, that WERE at one time the demons, the evil enemies.???

The above is why we must learn the lessons of the past. If we don’t heed the lessons of the past, they will come back to haunt us.

 

[JimG]

Today you and I can take a vacation to the Hanoi Hilton and drink knee highs with our friends, that WERE at one time the demons, the evil enemies.???

The above is why we must learn the lessons of the past. If we don’t heed the lessons of the past, they will come back to haunt us.

Yes, let’s learn from the past. Let us not demonize the enemy, and we must treat POW’s humanely. Let’s be sure we also remember the millions of victims we left behind for Uncle Ho and Pol Pot, who had no particular qualms about human rights. As the U.S. was preparing to leave Vietnam, the U.S. ambassador offered the Cambodian ambassador asylum if he would like to evacuate. The Cambodian ambassador thanked him for the offer but expressed his grievous disappointment that the U.S. intended to abandon its allies in southeast asia to the communists. He said he would stay with his people. He was later killed.

 

[bobzills]

It may have been a high point for the U.S. military, but it was a low point for human beings on this planet. .

Yes. A very low point for humanity. The USA, being the first to drop the A-Bopmb, set a bad precedent for the rest of the world.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Yes. A very low point for humanity. The USA, being the first to drop the A-Bopmb, set a bad precedent for the rest of the world.

Actually, the horrors of a nuclear attack became plain for all to see. And as a result, nukes didn’t get used again in combat.

Consider this: the U.S, the Soviet Union, Japan, and Germany were all working on nuclear weapons projects. If the drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not happened, then there might be a HIGHER likelihood that nukes would have been used later on elsewhere. Perhaps in Indochina. Perhaps in Korea. Perhaps during the Berlin blockade/airlift situation. Perhaps during the Hungarian uprising.

Impossible to say.

[That’s part of the problem when dealing with speculative hypothetical history … and with the fact that our hindsight possesses such remarkable clarity. And that our hindsight can be exercised from the privileged position of being 10,000 miles from the combat front lines. Being at home or in a cubicle at work … more than a half-century after the fact … gives one such authority and wisdom!]

 

[joe_clark]

We can be up the Wazoo with: The what if’s. If there is anything I want to convey it’s this:

We can be Americans in America and live in peace. We do not have to surrender to anyone or allow others to step on us. We do not have the right to attack other people and nations simply because they might, if, coulda, possibly, do something to us. We get back to- walk softly and carry the big stick with large amounts of negotiation stirred in the pot. War is just failure to communicate. The my way or the highway mentality needs to go. As we all can see it only made us feel good for a short time and never worked.

I think it takes much more courage to negotiate.

 

[JimG]

I think it takes much more courage to negotiate.

Not only courage, but great skill. One must also recognize, whether in negotiation or in battle, when tactics are not working.

I just finished reading “The Reluctant Belligerent” a history book by Robert Divine, by no means a war monger. The book treats almost exclusively of the politics and diplomacy in the U.S. preceeding WW-II. The nation tried a policy of neutrality in the European war, showing great reluctance to get involved, even going so far as to pass neutrality legislation.

For Winston Churchill, who had been hoping against hope for American entry into the war, Pearl Harbor was a gift from Japan. And Hitler provided another gift a few days later by declaring war on the United States. Ultimately, the author thinks that the U.S. may have added to the severity of the war, and thus added to the totality of the death and destruction, by waiting too long to enter the war.