Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

[GKMotley]

While I will not be participating, even if I am correct, I think I see a possibility of this thread bifurcating here. Interesting.

 

[o_mlly]

A moral theology must be coherent. If the self-defense principle is valid for one then it is valid for many. In war, the word “collateral” has a throw-away connotation. To the mother, the unborn child is not “collateral” damage. Neither are innocent persons in war.

 

[GKMotley]

Picture me eating popcorn, as (and if) this plays out here, further.

 

[Hume]

Absent the bombs, the next bloodbath was to commence with operation DOWNFALL/Olympic on Kyushu.

And like many of last centuries historians, a lot of our dead musings are based on false dichotomies.

Again, for the zillionth time, we’re talking about an island nation that had no navy and no longer had access to sufficient raw materials to make war.

Take a moment and let that sink in. Really.

So if the choice was between “Nuke these women and children or I’ll send thousands of our young men to die an attempt to conquer an already-defeated nation” then the problem isn’t the bomb, it’s the moron that’s forcing the false dichotomy.

And the bloodbath outside the Islands would continue at 250,000 a month (Giangreco, again).

And like all ideologues, Giangreco invokes fake numbers to justify his interpretation.

The three deadliest battles in WW2 (for Americans) were in Europe - Normandy, the Bulge, the Race to Berlin.

Normandy created 30k American war dead. Okinawa, the bloodiest battle of the Pacific created 13k? 14k?

But who knows, if we didn’t nuke those cities, maybe millions (of Americans - Japs didn’t count) would have died…

The Japanese were beaten. They were not prepared to surrender.

Nonsense. Their armed forces were nigh-gone and they were in the middle of a land/water race between the Soviets in the north and the Americans to the south to see who got to Tokyo first.

It just impugns our western jingoism to acknowledge that the Soviets played a role.

This topic, being history, is one of those things that knowing stuff helps with.

Sure. It also helps to use a little discernment in what you’re reading (particularly the texts you cited written in the 50s).

Truman’s justification for dropping the bomb was reportedly “To destroy Japan’s ability to make war”.

That was accomplished with the destruction of the Japanese fleet a Leyte Gulf in 1944. With subsequent raids, by summer 1945 the IJN had literally one (1) capital ship in operable condition.

As you (hopefully) would agree, island nations without navies cannot make war. Like, existentially, they can’t.

Japan’s ability to make war had already ended - as an indubitable fact. The Russians were in their northern homelands, storming south - another indubitable fact.

The war was over. The atomic bombings were not necessary.

 

[Hume]

While I will not be participating, even if I am correct, I think I see a possibility of this thread bifurcating here. Interesting.

Well, it’s a Catholic website. Everything including “What’s your preferred sports drink?” has a chance of a segue into abortion.

 

[o_mlly]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Is that you?

 

[JimG]

Suppose that HST had been advised of the availability of the nuclear weapons but had elected not to use them. (I recall reading that he had not been notified of their existence until after FDR’s death.)

Then it is likely that the invasion would have proceeded as planned. After months of ferocious and bitter battles, the allies would have prevailed, after hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen returned home in body bags. It is possible that after such a cataclysmic ending, Japan might never have been able to rejoin the nations of the world in a rebuilt and renewed capacity. Another generation of young men would be lost.

Then, some months later, the NY Times would run a story: “Truman Had Atomic Weapons That Could Have Ended the War Early, But Refused To Use Them.” He would have been the most reviled president in U.S. history, especially hated by those who lost sons in the last few cataclysmic months of the war.

 

[Hume]

Then it is likely that the invasion would have proceeded as planned.

The most likely outcome is the opposite.

There was a race on. If we didn’t hurry, the Soviets would have taken Tokyo.

Your idea, like GKM’s stems from a deliberate ignorance of the Soviets. One author I’ve read thought they’d have been in Tokyo before Christmas of 1945.

If the goal was to destroy Japan’s ability to make war, the only thing we’d have needed to do was keep the boys fed and entertained on the beaches. The Russians were doing it for us.

 

[GKMotley]

Japan was beaten. They were not prepared to surrender. A beaten country can do that. Existentially. Your problem is your lack of historical knowledge. Do keep up with the reading list. It’s your best hope. And tell me which book I’ve listed that was written in the 50s.ther than Butow. And one really needs to engage the facts.

I’ll wait here. Make that lack of knowledge, generally.

Their armed forces in the Islands was approximately 2 million +. Not counting the Ketsu-go civilian levies. The kamikaze planes (not counting the kaiten or the suicide boats) was between 7 and 12 K. In both the American and the Japanese estimates of what the invasion would cost, the Japanese figures were higher. Poorly armed hordes forming a significant part of the opposition would facilitate that.

23-26 Oct. Leyte Gulf is a favorite topic of mine. I particularly recommend Thomas/SEA OF THUNDER, for a close look at one of my favorite half American Indian destroyer commanders. But Prados/STORM OVER LEYTE (the subtitle will catch your eye), Willmont/BATTLE OF LEYTE GULF and the similarly titled BATTLE OF LEYTE GULF/Cutler) also recommended, keeping out of the more general histories on the naval war. Letye was one of the series of the increasingly mystical hopes for a successful kantai kessen. Lots of history behind that, leading, finally to General Anami. I’ll probably do it later.

Yes, all from my shelves, all read multi times. Heck, even my wife has read the Thomas.

Truman’s reason for dropping the bomb was to end the war. Expeditiously. Which it did

The capable ship (sort of) was the Nagato. She is mentioned in Thomas, Prados and Willmont. Lots of other places. And sank (slowly) after the Operation Crossroads atomic test in July 1946. Fitting.

The Russians were nowhere near their homelands at the surrender. . I’ve told you before.

You don’t do this very well.

 

[GKMotley]

Correct. He learned of it in Apr. Ironically, as a Senator investigating war time expenditures, he got interested in and had to be headed off from the Hanford plant. Not having any idea of what it was part of.

 

[o_mlly]

Then, some months later, the NY Times would run a story: “Truman Had Atomic Weapons That Could Have Ended the War Early, But Refused To Use Them.”

We can only judge Truman’s prudence in dropping the bomb, not his morality.

How long before we read-all-about-it?

Then, some months later, the NY Times would run a story: “Trump Had Knowledge That Could Have Ended the Pandemic Early, But Refused To Use Them.”

 

[Hume]

Japan was beaten. They were not prepared to surrender. A beaten country can do that. Existentially. Your problem is your lack of historical knowledge.

Your problem is the dead, jingoist lens you interpret your history with.

If Japan was defeated (as you just admitted here, right?), then there was no need to use the atomic bomb. Truman’s stated goal of eliminating “Japan’s ability to make war” had been accomplished. Fully.

Again, let that sink in for just a moment. Say it out loud - “Japan was defeated”.

And the notion that Japanese considerations for surrender weren’t underway is dead. Fake history. Jingoism.

Their armed forces in the Islands was approximately 2 million +. Not counting the Ketsu-go civilian levies. The kamikaze planes (not counting the kaiten or the suicide boats) was between 7 and 12 K.

All suffering from crippling shortages of fuel, ammo and general war materiel. Especially given the those terrifying Kamikaze - they were down to flying them with children - all the experienced pilots were dead.

Truman reason for dropping the bomb was to end the war. Expeditiously. Which it did

By your own admission above, the Japanese were already defeated.

Seems you have some harmonizing to do with your position, here.

The Russians were nowhere near their homelands at the surrender. . I’ve told you before.

They were in possession of the Kuril Islands. As the bird flies, these are closer to the Japanese homeland than Okinawa. Unless, of course, at this point you’d like to contend that your personal experience on the matter is superior than that of an actual map. At which point, I guess I’ll have to take your word for it .

You don’t do this very well.

Lol, if you say so.

The reason it’s difficult for old dogs to learn new tricks is because the brain is less elastic as we get older. On a physiological level we’re less capable of learning. This is why old and invalidated paradigms perish more through regular mortality rather than by additional information.

 

[GKMotley]

The word SURRENDER. You have a blind spot when this appears. We intended to reconstruct Japan, leaving no scintilla of a possibility of a “stab in the back” mindset, and a repeat of what followed WWI. This has been pointed out before.

The Japanese (those in the positions to work on that, mostly, at least) admitted they were defeated. Even the Anami group. But an invasion would be the last, final chance for a “decisive victory” the essence of which I will not go into for you at this time. And to obtain at least some of the 4 Factions group’s demands, a soft landing end to the war… Until then, no surrender.

Frank, Butow, Miscamble, on the list. Get to reading. More titles will follow. I can keep this up a very long time.

Do read Thomas. Look for Lt.Commander E.E.Evans and the USS Johnston. Read something, anyway.

No children in the Kamikaze. Would you like a few titles that would tell you of the Divine Wind. It would require reading, mind.

Yes. And the lower portion of Sakhalin. Not in any position to threaten the Home Islands Particualy to mount an amphibious assault. Tell me about their sealift capacity. Cornet and Olympic were each larger than Overlord. And we most certainly were not going to give them a lift. We wanted the Islands, and the Soviets as far back as we could get them. Couldn’t keep the bear from Europe. Most certainly could keep them from Japan. Good.

 

[JimG]

The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs, and the Defeat of Japan by Wilson Miscamble (review)

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/606041/pdf

 

[GKMotley]

And the notion that Japanese considerations for surrender weren’t underway is dead. Fake history. Jingoism.

Considerations. Yes, indeed, considerations.

Butow is as good as you will find, on what was going on when and where. I really do recommend you read it. Or something. Many, many things were going on, many people involved. No one offering to surrender. Everyone hoping for a way not to. Until the rigged gozen kaigan, over 9-10 Aug. When the Voice of the Crane was heard.

Butow has a lot of footnotes. Might that be putting you off? Feis/JAPAN SUBDUED or Brooks/BEHIND JAPAN’'S SURRENDER don’t. Would that help? I’d recommend Brooks. Of course if you keep saying things like this, I’ll keep adding titles for you

No, you really really don’t do this well.

 

[PetraG]

I have to wonder if the moral standard should not be nuclear bombs, per se, but rather any weapons whose explosive capacity or toxic side products make them excessively indiscriminate. That would include uses for nuclear weapons that we are familiar with, but not other technology that is based on fission but does not have those problems.

I mean this: fission is not an inherently immoral physical phenomenon when it comes to weapons. It is the properties of the nuclear bombs we have that are the moral problem.

 

[GKMotley]

Sort of, yes.

 

[goout]

Good references lend credibility to historical discussions.

 

[Hume]

Oof, two edits. I must be careful here!

The word SURRENDER. You have a blind spot when this appears. We intended to reconstruct Japan, leaving no scintilla of a possibility of a “stab in the back” mindset, and a repeat of what followed WWI. This has been pointed out before.

Yes indeed.

Hey, I happen to have a rock that keeps tigers away for $50. You know, just in case.

Frank, Butow, Miscamble, on the list. Get to reading. More titles will follow. I can keep this up a very long time.

To be sure, every ideologue I’ve met has a reading list that will guarantee I “see the truth”. Granted, this is usually religious in nature, but it’s always ideological.

Should I ever have need for "The Nuclear Bombing of Japan - A Jingoist’s Perspective, you’ll be the first on my list.

No children in the Kamikaze.

Of course there were. The Special Attack corps relied almost exclusively on youth.

Most certainly could keep them from Japan.

Sure, one of the actual primary reasons for setting the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on fire. Japan was defeated at that point, as you yourself stated.

No, you really really don’t do this well.

I seem to remember a post you put up about triumphalism a bit back when I had a different handle.

Like your position on whether Japan was defeated or not, this too seems to require some harmonizing on your part.

 

[GKMotley]

Yep.

And knowledge of the content of the references adds to that.