Hiroshima

[sidbrown]

No invasion was necessary to stop Imperial Japan. Their war machine was obliterated, they couldn’t leave their islands as they had no Navy left to speak of, and they were actively offering surrender.
!

That’s right.
The USA set a horrible precedent by being the first country to commit the immoral act of dropping an atomic bomb resulting in thousands of innocent civilian casualties.

 

[Light1111]

It is debatable whether Cuba had any nuclear warheads ,more or less thousands of them. What is not debatable is the fact they had no way whatsoever of delivering those warheads against targets in the United States. That was what the whole missile crisis was about-keepingh them from having the delivery capability.

I apologize for being confusing and mixing up various quotes of McNamara’s within one post. Indeed, the warheads Cuba had on-site were not nuclear. I don’t know enough about tactical weapons to state what they were. Just regular missiles, I believe. You can check out the documentary to get a better idea, as my memory for detail isn’t always perfect!

The statement he made about nuclear war – that one misjudgment could cost us nations – was an aside; a comment he made in reference to the fact that you cannot just ‘make a mistake’ when it comes to nuclear war – the consequences will be devastating.

But indeed, Cuba did not have nuclear weapons during those 13 days of Kennedy’s administration. Sorry for the confusion!

Peace!

 

[JRKH]

That’s right.
The USA set a horrible precedent by being the first country to commit the immoral act of dropping an atomic bomb resulting in thousands of innocent civilian casualties.

Just for clarity I looked up the term precedent and found this definition as best fitting it’s use above…“an example or instance used to justify later similar occurrences”

If the US use of the A-Bomb is a precedent, it is an interesting one since it has reulted, not in “later similar occurances” but in their NEVER being used again in war (at least so far) AND in efforts, consistanatly applied between sworn, nuclear capable, enemies, to prevent their use no matter the provocation.
Yes - A most Ineresting Precedent indeed…

I submit that the real “immoral” precedent of bombing cities that, “result(ed) in thousands of innocent civilian casualties”, had been set years, even decades, before by the targeting of cities with the intent of “breaking the morale of the population”. This was done by Germany in WWI when they send Zeppelins to Bomb London and when they built a huge canon capable of lobbing shells into Paris from some 70 miles away. The Spanish civil war saw cities Bombed and civilians killed.
WW II merely built on this precedent by using larger, heavier payloads to destroy larger sections of cities and killing (and maiming) many more people. Rotterdam, London, Liverpool, Coventry, Moscow, Leningrad, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, Nanking, Singapore, Tokyo, Kobe, Nagoya, and many many other cities and towns were targeted by both sides for various forms of indescriminate bombing. All of these were built on the precedent, already set decades before, of bombing cities with the intent of, breaking morale and dislocating large populations.

**The dropping of the Atomic Bombs did not “set the precedent”, it merely took a precedent already established, that of “total war” to it’s logical conclusion. **
If anything, the dropping of these bombs and the all too apparent aftermath, set a new precedent to do all in our power to never use them again…

Peace
James

 

[GEddie]

Just for clarity I looked up the term precedent and found this definition as best fitting it’s use above…“an example or instance used to justify later similar occurrences”

If the US use of the A-Bomb is a precedent, it is an interesting one since it has reulted, not in “later similar occurances” but in their NEVER being used again in war (at least so far) AND in efforts, consistanatly applied between sworn, nuclear capable, enemies, to prevent their use no matter the provocation.
Yes - A most Ineresting Precedent indeed…

I submit that the real “immoral” precedent of bombing cities that, “result(ed) in thousands of innocent civilian casualties”, had been set years, even decades, before by the targeting of cities with the intent of “breaking the morale of the population”. This was done by Germany in WWI when they send Zeppelins to Bomb London and when they built a huge canon capable of lobbing shells into Paris from some 70 miles away.

You could move the benchmark or precedent even farther back, to the shelling of Paris by the Prussians in 1870 - 1, where the citizens were systematically pounded to get them to surrender (which they did).

The moral problem is that cities are valid military objectives, and need to be captured for wars to be won. At what point do war operations with civilians in the way cease to be “standard operating procedure” and become “immoral”?

I doubt such a point can ever be determined.

The Spanish civil war saw cities Bombed and civilians killed.
WW II merely built on this precedent by using larger, heavier payloads to destroy larger sections of cities and killing (and maiming) many more people. Rotterdam, London, Liverpool, Coventry, Moscow, Leningrad, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, Nanking, Singapore, Tokyo, Kobe, Nagoya, and many many other cities and towns were targeted by both sides for various forms of indescriminate bombing. All of these were built on the precedent, already set decades before, of bombing cities with the intent of, breaking morale and dislocating large populations.

**The dropping of the Atomic Bombs did not “set the precedent”, it merely took a precedent already established, that of “total war” to it’s logical conclusion. **
If anything, the dropping of these bombs and the all too apparent aftermath, set a new precedent to do all in our power to never use them again…

Peace
James

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[sidbrown]

If the US use of the A-Bomb is a precedent, it is an interesting one since it has reulted, not in “later similar occurances” but in their NEVER being used again in war (at least so far) …

Not yet.
But there are many small countries learning and developing the necessary skills and technical ability to pull it off.

 

[JRKH]

You could move the benchmark or precedent even farther back, to the shelling of Paris by the Prussians in 1870 - 1, where the citizens were systematically pounded to get them to surrender (which they did).

Heck let’s push it back even further to the days of “fortified cities” and “castles”. Some enemy comes, the serfs and their family retreat into the fortifications and the enemy lays siege…If the city fell, the “innocent civilians” might be killed or carried off into slavery.
It seems that the more one thinks about it, the idea of an “innocent civilian population” was a rather recent innovation that didn’t last too long.

The moral problem is that cities are valid military objectives, and need to be captured for wars to be won. At what point do war operations with civilians in the way cease to be “standard operating procedure” and become “immoral”?

I doubt such a point can ever be determined.

I agree

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Not yet.
But there are many small countries learning and developing the necessary skills and technical ability to pull it off.

This is true, and they may well use them. But it is highly unlikely that their decision will be based on the “precedent” of the US using one…
I also suspect that the US, or some group of nuclear nations will hold over such small countries the same “sword of Damocles” that the US, the USSR and Red China shared. The sword of Mutual Assured Destruction.

Then of course their is always the even greater threat of terrorists getting ahold of a nuclear device and using it…But again, their decision to use it would hardly be predicated on the so called “precedent” set by the US…

Peace
James

 

[Ghosty]

It seems that the more one thinks about it, the idea of an “innocent civilian population” was a rather recent innovation that didn’t last too long.

These examples have gotten absurd, and don’t even address the real issue at hand. Attacking a city is not the same thing as directly targeting civilians in order to break morale. If a city is under siege, civilians will die, but killing civilians is not necessarily the goal of besieging a city.

At what point do war operations with civilians in the way cease to be “standard operating procedure” and become “immoral”?

I doubt such a point can ever be determined.

It’s extremely clear, actually. When civilians are incidental victims which can’t be avoided when destroying the enemy military (i.e their deaths are entirely unintended), and the killing of civilians is not disproportionate to the military damage done, and peace can’t be achieved without an attack, then the death of civilians in warfare is an understandable and morally neutral occurance.

When civilians are a target of an attack, or they are disproportionately killed in order to attack military targets, or peace can be achieved without the attack, it’s an immoral occurance.

This isn’t a difficult point to determine. Police forces make this kind of determination all the time when utilizing SWAT teams, for example. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fail in all parts of this measurement of moral legitimacy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[sidbrown]

This is true, and they may well use them. But it is highly unlikely that their decision will be based on the “precedent” of the US using one…

There is where I would disagree.
The precedent has been set with all kinds of dubious reasons used by Americans to justify their mass murder of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians by the A-bomb. What is there which would prevent another country to adjust this type of argumentation for their own use.

 

[Tsuwano]

There is where I would disagree.
The precedent has been set with all kinds of dubious reasons used by Americans to justify their mass murder of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians by the A-bomb. What is there which would prevent another country to adjust this type of argumentation for their own use.

Self preservation, of course. Any nation using atomic weapons today would face severe sanctions from the community of nations and would suffer greatly economically. If the nation using the weapons did so against another nation possessing nuclear weapons, the suffering would be on a much greater scale. Self interest and preservation would prevent nations from using nuclear weapons again.

 

[JRKH]

There is where I would disagree.
The precedent has been set with all kinds of dubious reasons used by Americans to justify their mass murder of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians by the A-bomb. What is there which would prevent another country to adjust this type of argumentation for their own use.

Overall the reasons used to justify using the A-Bombs are no more “dubious” than the reasons used to justify the firebombings of Japanese cities.
As I said, the “Precedent” had already been set. The only thing that changed was the Number of planes needed due to the power of the bomb. And that particular equation had been shifting and evolving from WW I when the Zeppelins began Bombing London. Planes got bigger and faster and carried more bombs. Bombs got bigger and spread more damage. In short, the munitions and the delivery systems evolved but the targeting of cities, in addition to military targets, remained the same.

My guess is that, if one looks at all of the “dubious reasons” raised for using the A-Bombs, one would find that most of them had already previously been used to justify various forms of “area bombing” of population centers with “conventional” weaponry.

So, again, the precedent that you claim was set by the use of the A-bomb was no precedent at all.

Peace
James

 

[funinsnow]

Here’s a copy & paste of what I wrote on Scott P. Richer’s Catholicism.about.com forum which is now here. My name is given:

by Anirban Bhattacharya.

While my view always has & will be that President Harry S. Truman should’ve dropped the atom bomb(s) elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths, he did what ended the war. Had it gone to a ground war with Japan, many American & Allied soldiers would’ve been killed or wounded & more Japanese civilians would’ve been killed & wounded. The Japs would’ve used women & kids in combat, armed with pitchforks & sticks-they were using teenage boys in kamikaze missions. Most Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors have said that they don’t blame the U.S. for dropping the atom bombs because they understand why it happened. President Harry S. Truman had no animosity towards those killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki-he did what would end the war. If Japan & Germany had the atom bombs, they would’ve used them against us.

The Japanese had Bushido code or Samurai way. Japs would fight to the death & for most surrender was dishonorable. Sometimes Japanese soldiers would pretend to surrender & when American soldiers tried to take them prisoner,the Japanese soldiers would drop grenades in suicide missions. If you see WW2 footage, Japanese POW were often wearing only their underwears when taken prisoner so as to delete possibility of grenades being used. Japanese famliies sometimes committed suicide by jumping off of cliffs. Hara-Kiri was committed by Japanese soldiers & captains who rather commit suicide than surrender.

Imperial Japan used biological warfare against China such as plague, typhoid, anthrax, along with Shiro Ishi’s parachuted flea bombs-similar to daisy cutters used during the Vietnam War only that they had fleas which carried diseases. There was the Bataan Massacre, Rape of Nanking, bayonetting Allied POW, etc. Hiroshima & Nagasaki were a continuation of the policy both sides had in believing would end the war which was bombing cities with the hope the other side would surrender. Tokyo, Kobe, Yokohama & other Japanese cities were firebombed & so many civilians were killed because homes were made of paper & wood. Hiroshima & Nagasaki continue to get most of the coverage so long after the war. Yes, the children killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki with their moms are innocent war victims.

Regardless of whether whether 1 believes as I do that President Harry S. Truman should’ve dropped the atom bomb(s) elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths & woundings or believe President Harry S. Truman’s decision’s right, we must not harbor animosity towards the victims. Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors have said that they don’t believe we need to apologize for the atom bombs being dropped but that we should not harbor animosity towards them. See article by Patrick J. Buchanan, Hiroshima, Nagasaki & Christian morality

 

[funinsnow]

Here’s a copy & paste of what I wrote on Scott P. Richer’s Catholicism.about.com forum which is now here.

While my view always has & will be that President Harry S. Truman should’ve dropped the atom bomb(s) elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths, he did what ended the war. Had it gone to a ground war with Japan, many American & Allied soldiers would’ve been killed or wounded & more Japanese civilians would’ve been killed & wounded. The Japs would’ve used women & kids in combat, armed with pitchforks & sticks-they were using teenage boys in kamikaze missions. Most Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors have said that they don’t blame the U.S. for dropping the atom bombs because they understand why it happened. President Harry S. Truman had no animosity towards those killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki-he did what would end the war. If Japan & Germany had the atom bombs, they would’ve used them against us.

The Japanese had Bushido code or Samurai way. Japs would fight to the death & for most surrender was dishonorable. Sometimes Japanese soldiers would pretend to surrender & when American soldiers tried to take them prisoner,the Japanese soldiers would drop grenades in suicide missions. If you see WW2 footage, Japanese POW were often wearing only their underwears when taken prisoner so as to delete possibility of grenades being used. Japanese famliies sometimes committed suicide by jumping off of cliffs. Hara-Kiri was committed by Japanese soldiers & captains who rather commit suicide than surrender.

Imperial Japan used biological warfare against China such as plague, typhoid, anthrax, along with Shiro Ishi’s parachuted flea bombs-similar to daisy cutters used during the Vietnam War only that they had fleas which carried diseases. There was the Bataan Massacre, Rape of Nanking, bayonetting Allied POW, etc. Hiroshima & Nagasaki were a continuation of the policy both sides had in believing would end the war which was bombing cities with the hope the other side would surrender. Tokyo, Kobe, Yokohama & other Japanese cities were firebombed & so many civilians were killed because homes were made of paper & wood. Hiroshima & Nagasaki continue to get most of the coverage so long after the war. Yes, the children killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki with their moms are innocent war victims.

Regardless of whether whether 1 believes as I do that President Harry S. Truman should’ve dropped the atom bomb(s) elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths & woundings or believe President Harry S. Truman’s decision’s right, we must not harbor animosity towards the victims. Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors have said that they don’t believe we need to apologize for the atom bombs being dropped but that we should not harbor animosity towards them. See article by Patrick J. Buchanan, Hiroshima, Nagasaki & Christian morality

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Today’s culture makes it very easy for those who have never had to make a difficult decision (placing someone’s, or many person’s, life in danger) to judge those who have made those decisions.

Academics (and wanna-be academics) have the luxury of such hind-sight only through the sacrifices of those who have made those decisions.

 

[Jack_James]

Self preservation, of course. Any nation using atomic weapons today would face severe sanctions from the community of nations and would suffer greatly economically. If the nation using the weapons did so against another nation possessing nuclear weapons, the suffering would be on a much greater scale. Self interest and preservation would prevent nations from using nuclear weapons again.

You are assuming that the nations are sane by your standards. Iran & North Korea and a few others are run by loony tunes.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Worth reading:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

I have read reports elsewhere that Germany did actually make a round-trip unrefueled flight between Germany and a point just outside of New York; so they were able to prove that it could be done.

They also had an operational jet bomber during WWII. And used it for photo-reconnassance very successfully. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234

The point is that during WWII, the Germans did some very remarkable things.

It is my opinion that based on how successful they were with such limited resources, that if the Germans had made one less mistake or if the Allies had made one more mistake, the Germans would have won WWII. It was that close.