Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

[StudentMI]

As even GKMotley admitted, Japan was trying to surrender. We just wouldn’t accept anything short of complete surrender.

 

[Hume]

Japan was not surrendering. Not that I know of. Such a statement should have some sort of backup.

At any rate, Japan is an island nation with very limited oil and iron reserves. After losing the sea, their ability to continue a war was lost.

An invasion was never going to be necessary.

 

[StudentMI]

It was more about an open door policy than anything.

 

[GKMotley]

To reach 100,000 dead in Tokyo, how many bombing runs did it take and how many bombs dropped?

How many dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from 2 bombing runs from the explosions and the fallout? From 2 runs, 1 bomb apiece?

Bombing runs is not an appropriate term. One says “raids”. Three raids, over 9-10 Mar, 23-24 May, 25-26 May. Approx 1400 planes total, though not all dropped bombs, for varying reasons. Bomb tonnage, HE and incendiary, 5000+

All deaths are approximations. Frank, in DOWNFALL gives a good explanation why. But estimates for what is usually given as 100,000 in Tokyo, from the three raids would be 97,031. Close enough.

Estimates on the deaths from the 2 atomic bombs vary widely. For varying reasons. Frank gives a table of a number of agencies and the estimates they have made, and ends with “The actual deaths due to the atomic bombs will never be known. The best approximation is that the number is huge and falls between 100,000 and 200,000”. DOWNFALL/ chap 17, p.287…

You illustrate a crucial point, with the comparison. We could have inflicted the same damage/destruction, functionally, with more of the same XXI AF raids. Which, over time, would have killed as many/destroyed as much. The follow plan for the conventional bombing, would ahve done just that. But time is blood. with casualties in the Theater running (pick your expert, I say Giangreco) at 250K-300K monthly, time was too expensive. The Japanese were inured to multi-B-san raids.But the shock of one plane, one bomb, on the minds of the decision makers was decisive. With some addition political maneuverings. One does suggest, for example, Sadao Asada’s “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender - A Reconsideration”. At the very least. It’s in the previously cited book edited by Maddox.

nterestingly, Japan was already organizing articles of surrender when we set the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on fire.

The Soviets had invaded their northernmost islands and they knew that the war was impossible to win at that point. They were trying to organize the logistics of getting the relevant persons together when the bombs fell.

Japan was not organizing articles of surrender. Japan, meaning the Saiko Senso Shido Kaigi were arguing how to end the war without basically surrendering. As in a negotiated peace. The Soviets were nowhere near the Kuriles or Sakhalin when the bombs were dropped. They were, in fact, a few hours into Manchuria, against the remnants of the Kwantung Army, when the Nagasaki bomb was dropped. The 9-10 Aug Gozen Kaigan got the news of the Soviet attack, and the Nagasaki bomb, in quick succession)

The Soviet attack did reach into the minor islands, though they didn’t get a chance to extend that over to Hokkaido. But they did keep up the depredations in Manchuria, China and into the Korean area, placing their boots on as much ground as they could. This went on for a couple of weeks after the Japanese had formally accepted the Potsdam provisions. And cost around 85K Japanese deaths, roughly 12K Soviets.

 

[StudentMI]

Japan was not organizing articles of surrender. Japan, meaning the Saiko Senso Shido Kaigi were arguing how to end the war without basically surrendering. As in a negotiated peace.

As in lives could have been saved had we not insisted on complete surrender.

 

[GKMotley]

And error is best extirpated by knowledge. Given enough time, I’m going to help you out. Maybe.

Assuming my wife doesn’t add to my list of chores.

 

[GKMotley]

Or as in lives could be saved if we surrendered to the Japanese.

An unconditional surrender, for reason previously stated, was what was going to happen, through invasion or more likely extended conventional attacks including chemical attacks on food crops, or the atomic bombs. Which ended the war more quickly and with a lower butcher’s bill than the other alternatives. Fewer deaths. Good.

 

[StudentMI]

Fewer deaths according to you and others who favor the unconditional surrender piece.

What happened was our government chose to incinerate cities to prove a point. Not exactly Christian behavior. And all for economic advantages.

 

[GKMotley]

We incinerated cities in a number ways and places,to end a war. Good idea, assuming you’re in one.

Fewer deaths accoutring to the people who calculate such things, yes. Have you (for example), read Giangreco yet? Any book at all on the general subject?

 

[StudentMI]

Have you read War Without Mercy by John Dower?

 

[tafan2]

So because if Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you disagree with my post you quoted?

 

[GKMotley]

Of course. It’s on the top shelf of the bookcase housing most of the 125-150 books I have on this topic. Dower is a good man to read. Also have his EMBRACING DEFEAT.

 

[neophyte]

So because if Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you disagree with my post you quoted?

Where in the world did you get that idea?

 

[StudentMI]

Another good book.

Do you have the Naval Institute Press book on how we antagonized the Japanese for years before Pearl Harbor? The name escapes me at the moment.

 

[GKMotley]

Does it have a blue cover? (W.C.Fields reference, there).

Find the title. If I don’t have it, I’ll likely get it. Books are my hobby and have been my business. I’m good at that.

But the concept sounds silly, given the fact that my hobby is really the Pacific theater in general and that …sounds silly. Dig up the title.

 

[Hume]

And error is best extirpated by knowledge. Given enough time, I’m going to help you out. Maybe.

Assuming my wife doesn’t add to my list of chores.

Spare me the patronizing. Really, please.

If you want to pretend that the war council wasn’t trying to meet to discuss surrender, fine. History disagrees, but fine.

The use of the bombs was probably 95% “we want to see what happens” and 5% military purpose. Hiroshima contained a naval office for a destroyed navy as well and the 2nd army headquarters for an army that was largely broken. As for Nagasaki, I’ve yet to see good reasoning why that burg was chosen.

---

Any rationale that justifies setting 100,000 civilians on fire and poisoning another 100,000 in just two single actions is a bankrupt rationale.

The very same rationale must be able to be fairly used to take your precious loved ones and bathe them in radioactive fire.

For rational people - not acceptable.

For Christians, based on my time when I was one - not acceptable.

100% of the defense of the atomic bombings stems from the fact that history is written by winners. We did it, so retroactively it was “necessary”. Because this jingoism stood for half a century, any attempt to reveal the cruel truth is treated by “academics” as revisionism. It’s only true by tragic, baseless, speculative inertia.

 

[StudentMI]

Bankrupting the Enemy by Edward Miller.

Haven’t read it but War Plan Orange by the same author and press sounds interesting.

 

[GKMotley]

Oops. Hit the wrong button

 

[Hume]

Regardless what nonsense you may have taught yourself, they did not have the oil and iron to carry on a war, the island nation’s navy was gone and the soviets were in their north, storming south.

For anyone without an ideologically motivated agenda (say, jingoism), the war was over.

 

[Victoria33]

Japan was already reeking havoc over in that area in the early 1930s I believe, yes, all countries have faults I’m sure. Invasion of Manchuria 1931. Japan also had a lot of control in Korea in the early 20th century.