Cooperation with evil - nuclear weapons

[FiveLinden]

I’m continuing to read the posts here with great interest but finding it extraordinary the number of posters who believe the end justifies the means. Are they all non-Catholics?

 

[GKMotley]

I’ve been on this merry-go-round, discussing the history of the use of the nuclear bombs in 1945 online for over 14 years. The answer is no, in my experience.

 

[edwest211]

I don’t believe the end justifies the means, not where atomic bombs are concerned. Another question: If you or your family were threatened by a criminal with a gun, what would you do?

 

[FiveLinden]

I don’t believe the end justifies the means, not where atomic bombs are concerned. Another question: If you or your family were threatened by a criminal with a gun, what would you do?

1. prior to the threat I would have supported restrictions on firearms so that the probability of such a threat was vastly reduced. 2) I would if possible comply with the criminal’s demand. I would not prioritise property over human life. 3) If the criminal tacked, or indicated this was imminent I would attempt to defend and would kill the criminal if it was necessary to protect innocent life. 4) I would of course not e armed with a firearm, but because the risk of death from suicide or accident from gun ownership is significant, that fat may be the reason I was there to defend in the first place!

 

[MonteRCMS]

How much time do you have to discuss and debate the what and the how of combatting an attacker?

You cannot take all day to discuss and debate when faced with imminent death.

You have seconds or less when an individual is involved.

You have days at most when a nation state is attacked.

If you spend too much time discussing and debating, you will get destroyed.

Right after the attack on Pearl Harbor, we had the battle of the Coral Sea.

Right in there, we had the improvised Doolittle raid from the aircraft carrier using light Army B-25 Mitchell bombers.

Right after the battle of the Coral Sea, we had the attack on Midway.

You don’t have a lot of time to discuss and debate.

People who spend time crying OMG, OMB, OMG are not going to last long.

Some generals were offered advanced commands and when they dithered, they were immediately benched.

 

[edwest211]

To quote a recent comment from a high-ranking member of the US military: “We now have 24 hour, global strike capability.” Of course, he left out details but time is always the issue. During the Cold War, the US and USSR had a 15 minute decision window. No longer. The flight time for an ICBM from Russia was 25 to 30 minutes depending on where you lived. You had to find shelter fast even if your odds of survival were very low.

 

[amaez51]

So I’m making the assumption that if another country used a ’nuke’ it would kill many innocent people. Am I right?
If so, are we entitled to do the same, in your opinion?

 

[MonteRCMS]

There are strenuous efforts being made [on going for decades] at ballistic missile defense.

So, no.

If another country used a nuke or attempted to use a nuke against the United States, there is a good chance that they might fail, owing to ballistic missile defense. AND that therefore, it would be pointless to attack the United States to begin with.

So, for decades, the United States has worked hard to complicate the “calculus” of a country that might potentially attack the United States.

It’s much more than merely an either or situation.

 

[amaez51]

Thanks Monte, but the question was about ed’s comment. I’m asking to clarify his stance so that I understand. My interest is not about BMD.

 

[2towers]

Interesting. So your saying that America’s decision to use nukes was a strategic decision based on the Soviets?

 

[edwest211]

Yes, it would kill many civilians, with the exception of attacking remote, hardened and deeply buried military sites. Here is what military threat analysis is all about. The US military has been doing it for a long time. Scenarios are created for every possible delivery method for nuclear and so-called “dirty bombs.” All enemies and threats are watched 24/7. All forms of electronic communications are monitored 24/7. More advanced satellites are parked over key threats, some with the ability to maneuver. Survivability of assets has been enhanced but no point in going into detail.

Speaking generally, there are several scenarios that stand out:

1. Russia and China have the technology that represents the greatest threat. The idea of a limited nuclear war is untenable. It would be full-scale.
2. A few other countries possess limited nuclear weapons capabilities - some are allies, others are threats.
3. Everyone knows what’s at stake if even one nuclear weapon is detonated. The response from the US would have to be measured against who is the perpetrator, what was the target and the damage inflicted.

So, if one nuclear missile hit Alaska or Washington State and it was launched by a rogue country, what would you do? Japan is already conducting civil defense drills against a possible North Korean missile. I do not believe for one moment that whoever is in charge is the issue. That country’s military knows there will be a measured response.

Next, in light of that scenario, the Chinese and Russians would react as well. And even if North Korea is not the culprit, there will be some form of retaliation against whoever did it. Nuclear weapons represent a last resort but if used, this country will go on alert. And we the people will not be making any final decisions. Legitimate defense means using a nuclear weapon against us or an ally will result in consequences.

Based on the limited information made public, I don’t think anything will happen. Nothing from North Korea, for example. We could take out their entire military infrastructure using conventional and some newer weapon systems, but no nuclear weapons. But that won’t be my decision.

Entitled is not the right word. The punishment or response should fit the crime.

 

[2towers]

Fascinating article.

 

[GKMotley]

Based at least partially on my mispent life, I can live with this.

 

[edwest211]

That’s my view. I have read books about the US decision to invade Japan but several flaws are there. Long before the end of World War 2, in 1943, there was a meeting in Cairo that including President Roosevelt, Winston Churchill (a distant relative), Chiang Kai-shek, with his wife, Madame Chiang Kai-shek, during which a strategy was planned for the Far East. A bit later, Churchill and Roosevelt flew to Tehran to meet with Marshal Joseph Stalin, who happened to have an ally in Mao Tse-tung. A secret deal was struck with Stalin who promised to attack Japan within 3 months of the German capitulation. But he was no longer our ally. In fact, the Cold War started right before the end of World War 2. We and the Russians were just allies of convenience. In fact, both the Germans and then, Winston Churchill used the term “Iron Curtain” to describe the Soviet attitude at the end of World War II. There would be complete silence regarding what was going on in the Soviet Sphere, which included Eastern Europe.

We were making plans about what to do if the Russians moved into Western Europe. The British were the most concerned. Anyway, the Russians had captured documents, equipment and personnel in Germany and Austria and were exploiting it as fast as they could. They tested their first atomic bomb in 1949, a few years before the CIA’s best estimate. The following year, they helped to start the Korean War in partnership with North Korea, and the primary aerial threat was the Russian MiG-15 which, not coincidentally, looked a lot like the American F-86 Sabre. Recon flights along the Soviet western border began in 1946, long before the U-2 spy plane was operational.

It appears to me, the two atomic bombs were set off to persuade the Russians to back off as far as taking over Japan.

 

[MPat]

Though a wounded number that so closely comports with a killed number is likely a tad suspicious. But what the heck, I added it in and the Soviet wounded, per the Soviets, 24,125.Total: 138,893 casualties, using the Soviet total = my 140,000 approximation.

So, after all this interrogation we find out that 140,000 was meant to be the number for both killed and wounded by all sides.

Was it so hard to say so the first time?

Oh, and the problem is that the philosophical principle you advocated only talks about people killed, not wounded.

Remind me which qualifications have been left out. I’ll see if it changes my conclusion.

Your claim “The bombs provided the quickest end to the conflict, with the lowest butcher’s bill, of any feasible alternative scenario, excluding unicorns and fairies.” has qualifications like these:

1. No alternative not actively discussed at that time is considered.
2. Highest available estimates for causalities of alternatives are taken.
3. Only causality estimates made at the time are considered - for example, “butterfly effect” is ignored.

But adding them in, weighed against the number of deaths not occurring by the continuation of the war still leaves the bombs as the lesser total.

Why add any causalities of any bombs? Those were sunk costs by then.

Also:

I have no problem with war crimes trials and death penalties, IOW.

Which means that you do not really take your supposed principle about minimisation of number of people killed seriously.

No wonder - if you would have applied the principle, you would have had to say that killing innocents is perfectly OK, but killing war criminals has to be avoided at all costs. Which is not very pleasant to say…

So, we can throw away your “principle” about killing the least number of people as an obvious smokescreen.

And thus I wonder… What is the real motivation for being a fan of nuclear bombings here?

Nope. What you see is what you get.

Not a fan of helpful documentation…?

 

[GKMotley]

Among other things…Also to end the war, in the fastest way possible, with the least casualties, and achieving end-games goals. And so it was.

I’ve read multi dozens of books covering the period you relate above. After the success of the Trinity test, the need for the Soviet participation in the Japanese defeat disappeared. After the actions of the the Soviets in Europe, particularity in Poland, as they set up their new empire borders, and denied the participation of the democratic Polish parties, per previous agreements, their presence was not going to be permitted, in as far as we could prevent it, to play similar evil games in the far east. And so it came about. Even so, they asked for a division of governance role in postwar Japan, similar to that in Germany. Truman told them to shove off.

 

[GKMotley]

After all this explication, you come to the realization that you misunderstood, yes.

Post script. I searched my book marks for the original article I was recalling. No luck. Likely because at the time I found it my work computer was not this one; it died 6 months ago, or so. But 2 other articles did appear. One by David Glantz, whom I mentioned above. He is the premier authority on August Storm that I am aware of. His figures differ slightly, primarily on Soviet deaths, but his total for all deaths is around 92K, Soviet wounded, around 24,000, no figures for Japanese wounded. All figures are rounded. He gives various reasons for preferring the Soviet figures.

The other article found follows Glantz’ figures, but gives the same 20K for Japanese wounded as Wiki.

Wounded people also die, occasionally. But sometimes I refer to casualties, sometimes to deaths, since that’s how I find the statistics given. If ending the war precipitously means to do so with a minimum of deaths, good. With a minimum of wounded, also good. Dead is more…final, of course.

Publication in dead tree format of Glantz’ AUGUST STORM, THE SOVIET 1945 STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE IN MANCHURIA, written as a part of then LTC Glantz’ professional military education, would be nice.He has a book out on Stalingrad. Maybe, maybe not. I’ll see.

True. I deal in history, here. I deal in alternative history in other venues. As noted. So, no fairies, no unicorns. And no trolls. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t consider trolls seriously.

Casualty estimates are the best place for a good, unwritten book on the theater. I haven’t even given the highest estimate possible.

People killed in war, as opposed to convicted criminals executed in any scenario, two different points. The bombs ended the war in the most expeditious manner, least casualties, etc. Does not truncate application of justice to convicted war criminals, after they have done so. And if you added in all such executions, the bombs still win. Fewer deaths. Non issue.

Killing some number of noncombatants is part of ending the killing of all categories, whether it’s occasioned by firebombing or 1 uranium gun device, 1 plutonium one. Hence the bombs were the 2nd least worse decision possible, all other avenues causing more deaths/casualties of all categories of folk. The war continues, the killing continues, at a steady pace, outside the Home Islands, not affected by what is going on there, as long as it isn’t surrender… Be parsimonious, not profligate with death.

You do post loaded persiflage. I’m a fan of ending the Japanese conflict, in the most expeditious manner, with the least deaths/casualties, consistent with the strategic goals of being in the war in the first place. The bombs did that most efficiently.

Creature of habit.

Also, recall I deal in the history of the end game in the Pacific. Not philosophizing, beyond the fewest, soonest, etc.

 

[JimG]

Here is a book review of a book by Rev. Wilson D. Miscamble, history professor at Notre Dame. The book is “The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs, and the defeat of Japan.”

“Father Miscamble believes that efforts to “evaluate [Truman‘s] actions retrospectively in explicit moral terms is insufficient.” He maintains that the political-military aspect of the situation is crucial in determining the rightness of Truman’s decision.”

The Most Controversial Decision

 

[GKMotley]

Yep. Good book. And, with a wider view, his FROM ROOSEVELT TO TRUMAN is recommended, too.

 

[2towers]

the Russians had captured documents, equipment and personnel in Germany and Austria and were exploiting it as fast as they could

Yes and we did the same thing with former Nazi scientists and others.

We were making plans about what to do if the Russians moved into Western Europe

I often wonder what would have happened if Ike had taken the leash off of George Patton.

Incidentally I look forward to exploring FP.com. Are there any foreign sites in English you would recommend?