Destroying Iran's Nuclear Capabilities

[SoCalRC]

The lack of raw materials would have slowed down their war machine, but it wouldnt stop it. Isolating them would take more resources, more lives and prolonged the war, something that nobody wanted and few could afford.

This is nonsensical. We can argue that we tried to shock and awe, the evidence is that we failed.

We can argue that we were losing the war, but we were seriously considering a massive invassion of Japan’s own soil.

You’re just recycling Truman’s evolving post war rationalizations, which, in his own writing and words grew dramatically over time.

 

[Elric]

This is nonsensical. We can argue that we tried to shock and awe, the evidence is that we failed.

Im not arguing “shock and awe”.

We can argue that we were losing the war, but we were seriously considering a massive invassion of Japan’s own soil.

But we were not losing the war. At that stage we had pushed Japans forces back and had begun a massive invasion of Japans own soil.

You’re just recycling Truman’s evolving post war rationalizations, which, in his own writing and words grew dramatically over time.

No, I am being a realist while being appalled at what happened.

 

[OldRedleg]

Having served over 23 years in the U.S. Army in jobs that included the planning and possible execution of nuclear weapons strikes, as well as the use of conventional weapons, I feel fairly well qualified to jump into this debate. As a faithful Catholic I affirm that the decision to use nuclear weapons must always be one of last resort. I thank God that I was never actually placed in the position to use them.

However, under the Just War Doctrine a case can be made for their use. Their use against Japan during World War II is a good case study. While the casualties from the dropping of the two atomic bombs were horrific they were miniscule compared to the estimated casualties that would have occurred during an invasion of the Japanese home islands. The lesser evil was to use them.

As many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki may have died from the bombings by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings, for a total of around 220,000 deaths. As already pointed out in previous posts, in both cities the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

Let us compare these losses to those projected for Operation Downfall, the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff in mid-1945 by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities (including civilians). The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

These projections were based on the U.S.’s experience of the invasion of Okinawa. The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 U.S. casualties over about 82 days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. There were about 66,000 Japanese combatants killed and only 7,000 surrendered. At some battles, such as Iwo Jima, there had been no civilians involved, but Okinawa had a large indigenous civilian population that considered itself Japanese. Okinawan civilian losses in the campaign were in excess of 140,000; in addition, it is estimated that more than a third of the surviving civilian population was wounded. There were numerous cases of Japanese soldiers and civilians committing suicide rather than surrender to U.S. forces. The same was expected for an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Some have argued that the casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were inflated later by President Truman to justify the atomic bombing. However, consider that nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock. There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.

There are some who try to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets. Well they were.

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Finally, one of the posters stated that we only had two bombs. In fact the United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August 1945, with three more in September and a further three in October. There were enough bombs in the production pipe line that serious considerations were being made on where to drop them in terms of on targets to support an invasion, or targets that would assist in breaking the will of the Japanese government to continue the war.

President Truman’s decision saved millions of lives. While I abhor the killing of innocent civilians this was a case where the ultimate good was served in saving lives in the long run.

 

[SoCalRC]

However, under the Just War Doctrine a case can be made for their use. Their use against Japan during World War II is a good case study.

I’d be interested in hearing that argued. Two consecutive Pontifs have argued that the existance of modern weapons of such scale, in of themselves, make just war in the Catholic tradition highly unlikely.

Consider, we interned civilians and then killed them in massive numbers. Both these are specifically prescribed in canon law in a just war. Yes, some people have tried to make the moral argument, but Popes are the supreme moral authority of our Church.

Let us compare these losses to those projected for Operation Downfall, the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan.

You are assuming that ground assault was the only alternative to an atomic attack. Numerous voices in the military were arguing for containment, since the Japanese lacked the domestic resources to sustain an significant war machine.

Some have argued that the casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan were inflated later by President Truman to justify the atomic bombing. However, consider that nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan.

Truman revised his own estimates, upwards, over time, in his recorded speeches and writing.

The 500,000 Purple hearts is true, which would equate to an expectation of 200,000 KIAs, which is massive. However, again, just war make a sharp distinction between combatants and non combatants.

As for the rest of the annecdote, I am not sure. I received two Purple Hearts, both are crimp brooch (post WW-II manufacture). So I suspect that the inventory was exhausted sometime in the mid-late 60’s. Also, both the Navy and Army have sent out ‘out of stock’ letters this year.

Finally, one of the posters stated that we only had two bombs. In fact the United States expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August 1945, with three more in September and a further three in October. There were enough bombs in the production pipe line that serious considerations were being made on where to drop them in terms of on targets to support an invasion, or targets that would assist in breaking the will of the Japanese government to continue the war.

I’m sorry, I can only go on the public and written memoirs of the individuals involved. I actually have had the good fortune of meeting several MProj participants (for example **** Feynman taught here in SoCal for many years), but never had an opportunity to discuss their experiences in detail and, of course, never pressed.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Iranian facilities are too deep in the earth to bomb with conventional bombs. Do you plan to drop atomic weapons on them?

 

[THurifer2]

There are plenty of horrible pictures on the internet which show the hell that the USA has done to innocent children in Iraq.

So true…Oh by the way have you seen the thousands of horrible pictures on the internet of tortured and mutilated children? All 40 million of them?

All at the hands of the US Judicial system.

 

[OldRedleg]

In reply to Anthony’s question on whether we would have to use nuclear weapons to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities…the answer is no.

We could do it easily with existing conventional weapons. The Iranian air defense system does not have the ability to track and target our B-2 bombers. While the facilities are hardened and deep under ground there are various ways we could take them out using deep penetration bombs to collapse access tunnels, laser guided bombs to destroy power distribution nodes supplying them or the water supply system needed to cool the reactor systems.

I actually have a difficult time visualizing the set of circumstances that would result in the U.S. using nuclear weapons again. While we reserve the right to first strike, the reality is that I don’t think any U.S. President would authorize their use except in response to a nuclear attack on the U.S. or to prevent one.

I also take serious offense to bobzills insinuation that the U.S. military either deliberately targets innocent civilians or has a complete disregard to the possibility that they might be injured during military operations. The pictures that are being referred to on the Internet are often put there as anti-U.S. propaganda.

I’ve sat in hundreds of targeting meetings. For every target being considered a collateral damage assessment is carried out that looks at the potential for civilian casualties and unintended damage to surrounding civilian structures. I’ve seen countless targets deleted from strike plans because the potential for civilian casualties outweighed the military value of the target.

Additionally, advances in technology have significantly reduced civilian casualties. We have come a long way from the “carpet” bombing of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. One laser guided bomb today can take out a target (with minimal damage to surrounding structures) that would have required hundreds of bombs back then and reduced the surrounding neighborhood to rubble.

Yes, war is a horrible thing. Civilians will get killed. But the U.S. military takes extreme measures to try and minimize this from occuring. We put people in prison if they disregard these procedures and the rules of engagement.

But what about the Al Quida extremist that detonates a car bomb in a crowded civilian market place to cause civilian casualties? Where is your cry of outrage against those who deliberately cause civilian deaths and injuries as their way of fighting a war?

 

[bobzills]

InI also take serious offense to bobzills insinuation that the U.S. military either deliberately targets innocent civilians or has a complete disregard to the possibility that they might be injured during military operations.

The US knew very well that innocent children who had nothing to do with these political wargames would be killed by dropping the A-Bomb on Japan. There were other alternatives and children did not have to be killed. Relgious and Scientific leaders, including the president of the Catholic group Pax Christi, have declared that : “Threatened use of nuclear weapons in the name of deterrence is morally wrong because it holds innocent people hostage for political and military purposes.”
See: Nuclear Weapons ‘Immoral,’ Say Religious, Scientific Leaders at
commondreams.org/headlines04/0309-01.htm

 

[bobzills]

The Catholic peacegroup Pax Christi has said:
“Dialogue and diplomacy with Iran urgently needed; Do not rely on military solutions.”
The Catholic peace group declares:
"We are particularly alarmed by the posture of the US and other governments of threats and intimidations towards Iran instead of a posture of dialogue and negotiation. As can be clearly seen in Iraq, war unleashes a spiral of violence, death, and destruction.
…
We call on the US Administration to step back from the brink of war and end all threats, actions or plans for war against Iran.

We call upon the governments of the US and Iran to immediately open direct talks on all issues of immediate concern, to both parties.

We call on all other governments, and especially to the European Union, to clearly and openly distance themselves from the US intimidation against Iran.

We affirm and support the effort of US interfaith leaders to call on their government to dialogue with Iran and we commit to supporting their efforts with our own governments.

Our nascent century has seen far too much bloodshed in its first seven years. We elevate and reaffirm the plea of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, “War no more. War never again.” "
See:
paxchristiusa.org/news_Events_more.asp?id=1316

 

[bobzills]

Pax Christi has been partnering with the Hiroshima Peace movement to abolish nuclear weapons. :
'Dear Friend of Hiroshima,

I am writing to request your assistance with a new project designed to arouse public demand in the US for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Some countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons while others are not. This double standard was among the causes of the war in Iraq and could easily lead to another catastrophe in Iran. "
Please see:
paxchristiusa.org/news_events_more.asp?id=1284
Also see:
paxchristiusa.org/news_thecatholic_pv.asp

 

[Elric]

The US knew very well that innocent children who had nothing to do with these political wargames would be killed by dropping the A-Bomb on Japan.

What exactly are “Political Wargames” and how do they apply to WW2?

The thing with “Killing innocent children” is that it was already happening, on both sides of the conflict and in other conflicts that were happening at the time (such as in Africa and Europe). Innocent adults were also killed in these conflicts, as well as quite a few soldiers.

Its all well and good to be upset/angry over innocent children being killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but what about those that were killed in the Asia Pacific area (ie: Singapore, New Guinnea, the Philliphines, Australia, China ect), Africa and Europe?

Dont they rate as highly as those that had an atomic bomb dropped on them?

There were other alternatives and children did not have to be killed.

Like what?

Japan refused to give up.

Allied forces had beaten them, had pushed them back and were invading Japaniese soil, had reduced their natural resuorces, had reduced their armies/navies/airforce yet Japan kept fighting and were fighting tooth and nail. They were not interested in diplomacy.

And again, children were already being killed. One could say that this is one of the reasons why Japan had to be stopped.

Relgious and Scientific leaders, including the president of the Catholic group Pax Christi, have declared that : “Threatened use of nuclear weapons in the name of deterrence is morally wrong because it holds innocent people hostage for political and military purposes.”
See: Nuclear Weapons ‘Immoral,’ Say Religious, Scientific Leaders at
commondreams.org/headlines04/0309-01.htm

That isnt completly accurate really.

You could say that about virtually any weapon.

I think that people really need to learn the lesson from the atomic bombings, unfortunatly the wrong lesson was taken from them.

 

[bobzills]

Like what?

Japan refused to give up…

One alternative to dropping an A-Bomb on populated areas and killing innocent children, who had nothing to do with these wargames, would have been:
Drop a nuclear bomb at sea near Japan or on an unpopulated area near or in
Japan and say: “Do you see this horror? If you do not stop the war and negotiate the end of the war, we will have to drop another one on a populated area within five (?) days.”
And there was the possiblity of diplomacY:
“In the waning weeks and days of the Pacific War, America showed no inclination to negotiate an end to the war with the Japanese or to initiate any diplomatic initiatives to seek a prompt, peaceful end of the war to minimize further casualties on both sides. After Japan’s staggering losses and defeat in Okinawa in June 1945, Japanese leaders sought the Soviet Union’s help to negotiate a peace with the U.S. However, American leaders continued to refuse to consider Japan’s request that the surrender be conditional on the emperor remaining as the nation’s head.”
“After examining the evidence provided in the readings cited at the end of this essay, I now believe no justification exists for the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. America had already destroyed almost all of the Japanese navy and air force, so Japan could not effectively wage war or even defend itself. After steady American air bombings of Japanese cities in the first half of 1945, Japan was already on the verge of collapse when the bomb hit Hiroshima. Top-level World War II military leaders such as MacArthur and Eisenhower believed the bomb to be totally unnecessary from a military point of view (Takaki 1995, 3-4, 30-31). Even if the Hiroshima bombing could be justified, the Nagasaki bombing has absolutely no justification, since America did not even give Japanese leaders enough time to evaluate the effects of the Hiroshima bombing and to reconsider their decision to not surrender.”
See:
wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/hiroshim.htm

 

[OldRedleg]

In my heart I wished everyone in the world could be like bobzills when it comes to total opposition to war. Especially when it comes to deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. What a wonderful world it would be. I pray every day that the leaders of the world will seek out peaceful resolution to conflicts vice resorting to the use of force of arms. As General William Tecumseh Sherman said:

"I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine.
It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard
the shrieks and groans of the wounded
who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
War is hell."

Sadly, we must live in a real world where there will always be war. There are evil people in the world who wish to do us and our friends harm. We need a strong national military as much as your town needs a police force. There are just flat our times when there is no other recourse but to take up arms in defense of the nation and our liberties. The below quote pretty well sums it up:

*“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” *

​

John Stuart Mill

​

English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Like Sherman I’ve seen first hand the human suffering and horrors of war and abhor it. But the reality is that there are times when it is unavoidable. That is why we have the Just War Doctrine.

As for the debate on whether we should have dropped the atomic bombs on Japan we could argue the points forever. (I’ve got all the data on the strength and dispostion of Japanese forces for the defense of Japan.) The bottom line is that dropping the bombs ended the war far sooner than any other course of action, and probably saved millions of lives. If you want to keep debating the point I recommend starting another thread so that this one can focus on Iran.

 

[bobzills]

In my heart I wished everyone in the world could be like bobzills when it comes to total opposition to war. Especially when it comes to deliberate targeting of innocent civilians. What a wonderful world it would be. I pray every day that the leaders of the world will seek out peaceful resolution to conflicts vice resorting to the use of force of arms. As General William Tecumseh Sherman said:

"I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine.
It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard
the shrieks and groans of the wounded
who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
War is hell.".

Thanks for the kind words. I agree with you this far.
For the rest, I would agree with the PaxChristi site.
test.paxchristi.net/eng/concerns.php?wat=disarm
test.paxchristi.net/eng/concerns.php?wat=religion
Also:
“The impact of war on children is also profound. In the last decade, two million of our children have been killed in wars and conflicts. 4.5 million children have been disabled and 12 million have been left homeless. Today there are 300,000 child soldiers, including many girls who are forced to ‘service’ the troops.”
see:
watsonblogs.org/smoattari/archives/2006/03/the_impact_of_w.html

 

[Holly3278]

I personally don’t think that any military action is justified except for under the conditions of the Just War Doctrine.

 

[MojeIme1981]

I personally don’t think that any military action is justified except for under the conditions of the Just War Doctrine.

In my personal opinion, I tend to think that the best way to make a just war is when soldiers combat face to face. This sounds fair and just.

Of course from a technology point of today, this is impossible, so as a compromise, I think that a just war should at least be aimed only against military targets, even if the military causalities in this way would far exceed the civilian casualties.

Having that said, I don’t see how the usage of atomic bomb can be justified, because an a-bomb affect almost exclusively civilians. Using an abomb to target military targets is like using a rocket launcher to hit a mosquito…

 

[thomass]

But what about the Al Quida extremist that detonates a car bomb in a crowded civilian market place to cause civilian casualties? Where is your cry of outrage against those who deliberately cause civilian deaths and injuries as their way of fighting a war?

Ok, Here is my cry of outrage at “their way of fighting a war.”

“Outrageous!!” “Evil!!”

Of course, that is not the topic on this thread. The topic is whether we should preemptively bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. Those who seem to agree that we should, in my opinion, seem to think in terms of “either we do this or we sit back and wait for them to bomb us.”

Those who are opposed to such rhetoric, myself included, seem to be saying “haven’t we heard this before from these same people and weren’t they wrong then?” They are also saying that the consequences of such a strike would offset strategic gains. Again I would agree. You said yourself that your targeting meetings always weighed civilian casualities against military effectiveness.

I ask you, completely leaving Church teaching aside, does not the need to “weigh” the tactical advantage of a military action against the lives of innocent victims make you sick to your stomach? I thank you for your service to the country and your conscientious execution of your duties, but, sincerely, does not this choice repulse your catholic conscience? If so, does not that repulsion lead to the possibility that war- and war like rhetoric are in themselves EVIL?

Peace

 

[thomass]

Sadly, we must live in a real world where there will always be war. There are evil people in the world who wish to do us and our friends harm. We need a strong national military as much as your town needs a police force. There are just flat our times when there is no other recourse but to take up arms in defense of the nation and our liberties]

 

[OldRedleg]

Thomass,

You asked:

I ask you, completely leaving Church teaching aside, does not the need to “weigh” the tactical advantage of a military action against the lives of innocent victims make you sick to your stomach? I thank you for your service to the country and your conscientious execution of your duties, but, sincerely, does not this choice repulse your catholic conscience? If so, does not that repulsion lead to the possibility that war- and war like rhetoric are in themselves EVIL?

It absolutely made me sick with depression and stress related psychological problems. I could have continued on in the Army but retired because I didn’t want that type of responsibility anymore. I found out that in my heart I was too much of a pacifist and it did bother my “Catholic conscience”. But having a “Catholic conscience” while doing those jobs was what allowed me to make appropriate moral stands when required and to perform my duties conscientiously. Since retirement I’ve been a much happier guy and have dedicated myself to serving the Church as much as I can.

However, I have to stick to my guns (pun intended) when it comes to whether it is possible to have a just war. There are times when a nation simply must go to war. The U.S. involvement in World War II is a prime example of a Just War to overthrow the evil of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Where we have common ground I think is the issue of how that war should be conducted. There are international rules and laws of armed conflict that are designed to limit the human suffering as much as possible. We need to follow those rules and punish those who violate them. We have seen U.S. service members brought before court martial for violating those laws and I think that is a good thing.

There is a good argument to be made reference the inhumanity of nuclear weapons. But remember that in World War II we carpet bombed whole city blocks to destroy one military target and dropped incendiary bombs on cities to destroy Japan’s cottage war material industry. You can create as much destruction and human suffering with conventional weapons as you can with nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb is a tool of war just as much as a 500lb conventional bomb. The key issue is the manner in which those “tools” are used.

There has been some good come out of the development of nuclear weapons. The shear terror of there destructive power keeps rational governments from using them and risking going to war. I believe the U.S. and the Soviet Union never went to war because of their nuclear arsenals. The same can be said of India and Pakistan since they became nuclear powers. The Arab countries that surround Israel have stopped trying to wipe them off the map militarily ever since they came to believe that Israel had it’s own nuclear arsenal.

The problem is what can happen when a government such as Iran acquires nuclear weapons. It is an Islamic fundamentalist government that truly believes that it is morally okay to spread their religion through force of arms in accord with their interpretation of the Koran and Mohamed’s teachings. I believe it is better to try and keep them from developing them now rather than having to deal with them later after they have the capability. That doesn’t mean a military strike now. We need to exhaust diplomacy first with the international community.

 

[OldRedleg]

Thomass, you said:

I love my country for it’s constitution, but my loyalty is hardly to ANY politician or administration. This administration more than any other in our history has proved to me that to put trust in any given administration or politician is to abdicate my responsibilities as a citizen.

I agree with you 100% . We both swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States and to obey the legal orders of our superior officers. We didn’t swear blind obedience to George Bush.

When in uniform you have a moral and legal obligation to disobey illegal orders. As a Christian in uniform there may come a time when you morally object to what is a legal order. At that time you have to abide by your moral conscious and be ready to take the heat for your decision.