Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

[GKMotley]

Also, need to read the books.

 

[otjm]

Both Russia and the USA have each 1600 to 1750 of these devices ready to fly.

Which may be less and issue (Russia vs. the US) than the issue of China (whom I suspect of being somewhat on a par with the Russia pre-fall of Communism); North Korea, and Iran.

MAD appears to have worked (and perhaps the closest we came was over Khrushchev and Cuba) as neither party was willing to risk any nuclear exchange. That horrifies some people; but they are exceedingly unwilling to accept what too often is their proposal: we destroy our weapons and “show how good and Christian we are”. It is a few months shy of 75 years that the last nuclear weapon was used in war. Neither Russia then, nor China now trusts us to have “good intentions” but both appear to be rational. The same cannot be said for North Korea or Iran with any particular degree of confidence.

Oh, and it is hydrogen fusion, not fission.

 

[PetraG]

Well, in that respect, yes.

The Tokyo raids, in terms of deaths/injuries and property damage (the latter being the factor most immediately visible to the populace) were quite similar to Hiroshima. There was no restlessness from the general public. The general public were not permitted restlessness. And the general public, unlike the system in GB, had no part in the choosing or tenure of the ruling clique. Or statesmen, if you will.

Right…so we can say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki put the methods being used throughout WWII (including in Europe) onto a grand scale, but did not invent a new moral code. Bombing civilian areas was widespread during the war. I think that is fair…that is, the nuclear bomb was worse because it accomplished what it did on such a massive scale, but the moral choice wasn’t entirely novel.

I think the general sentiment in the United States towards the Japanese was of course colored by Pearl Harbor: there is nothing “these people” won’t do to win. This sort of thinking makes a big difference in how people consider these decisions.

 

[PetraG]

We can disagree with the precision of another’s calculation but not his moral right to act on his own calculation.

Just to clarify: people don’t have a right to keep an ill-formed moral conscience. They have to act on the conscience they have, but they don’t have a moral right to hang on to defective moral reasoning. Someone who has access to better moral reasoning has a moral duty to conform his or her conscience to the better reasoning.
Not that you said that, but I’m addressing the flawed “I can’t help it, this is just how I see it” excuse that comes out of the premise that a person has to follow his or her individual conscience.

 

[otjm]

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

Y’all might want to take a long read through history; starting with the end of WW1, and what the world - not the US - the whole world - experienced with the failure to accomplish a complete surrender of Germany.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Yeah there was some chin chatter among a few to make a complete surrender, and it was going nowhere fast.

You might also want to brush up a bit on bushido; it is hard for a Westerner to comprehend the mind and moral structure of the Japanese, and leads to some interesting presumptions that “they are just like us”.

 

[Hume]

Ad hominem argument.
If you cannot credibly argue your case, you need to critically examine it.

Lots of problems here.

First, the default is “uncertainty”. It’s not on me to disprove anything. I’m more than content shooting holes in the absurd and clearly revealed jingoist “We Had to Nuke Japan” arguments.

Second, my argument is very easy to make. Japan is an island nation with no navy. Everything related to warcraft was in shortage there. The Ruskies were coming. Defeat was completely inevitable - GKC even agreed… sometimes. And GKC aside, it’s not hard to find completely credible military leadership from the time that was more than happy to admit it wasn’t necessary. These are tough facts to deny, regardless how many books one may have on their shelves.

Third, the biggest voice for invasion was MacArthur, the 6-star general who led the planning for Operation Downfall. The man rarely encountered a problem he didn’t think was best solved by full-scale invasion. He was sacked not long after in Korea for outright insubordination.

Fourth, if you’re playing the ad hominem police, I know of someone else in the discussion that requires your attention with much more straightforward examples.

---

Nuclear weapons are fundamentally immoral creations. They murder women and children in addition to the handful of targets you’re actually trying to hit. They aren’t war machines. They’re extermination machines.
Their increased proliferation decreases the probability of long-term human survival because, eventually, some zeal-eyed moron will use them again and our species is still confined to this one planet.

 

[GKMotley]

The definitive point was that the bomb did what it did with such an economy of effort: one bomb, one plane.

 

[Hume]

You might also want to brush up a bit on bushido;

You might want to brush up on the Meiji Restoration. The samurai - the formal practitioners of Bushido, were 60 years gone by 1945.

 

[Hume]

The definitive point was that the bomb did what it did with such an economy of effort: one bomb, one plane.

No one’s arguing that. After setting two cities (with thousands of women and children) on fire, the unconditional surrender came quickly.

But then that’s a question of economy, isn’t it?

How much is the life of a 1945 Japanese family worth in term of oil barrels for the American navy

 

[PetraG]

The definitive point was that the bomb did what it did with such an economy of effort: one bomb, one plane.

There is nothing immoral about efficiency. If it were OK to do it, it would be OK to do it quickly and well.
The question if what known nuclear weapons do ever achieve a moral end or if the achieved result is morally problematic because it is always overkill.

 

[otjm]

that is, the nuclear bomb was worse because it accomplished what it did on such a massive scale,

It could be argued very effectively that the nulcear bombs were far less destructive overall than the fire bombing being used against Japan.

And another issue is the constant mantra that “they were (all) civilians”. There were 40,000 garrisoned troops in Hiroshima, making it a combined target. Nagasaki contained numerous war manufacturing sites.

One of the proposals above was that we simply starve the entire country; I have no clue as to how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions would have died as a result.

 

[BT3241]

Spell checker was just fine with it - spelling police.

 

[Hume]

And another issue is the constant mantra that “they were (all) civilians”. There were 40,000 garrisoned troops in Hiroshima, making it a combined target. Nagasaki contained numerous war manufacturing sites.

20k soldiers were actually present in Hiroshima. The other 100k or so were civilians.

For Nagasaki, there were very, very few soldiers stationed in the city. Few hundred. The other 50k or so were civilians.

Not ethically defensible weapons.

 

[GKMotley]

5 star general. Who did indeed say that the bomb should not obviate the follow- on invasion. With him in charge. No, I always say that the Japanese were defeated. I always say you should read more. Butow or Frank are good.

Arnold, maybe. What did Arnold say, in toto? In his memoirs, “…the abrupt surrender of Japan came more or less as a surprise, for we had figured that we would probably have to drop four atomic bombs or increase the destructiveness of our B-29 missions by adding the heavy bombers from Europe” which latter was indeed in the plans, once the necessary fields were available on Okinawa and from Kyushu, after the invasion. The real increase of the conventional bombing would have been the added 700 B-29s previously mentioned, until the Japanese surrendered. And meanwhile the blood price continued, throughout the theater,monthly. Until the surrender. Keep that word in mind.

What did he say immediately after the bombs? “…atomic bombing story received largest and heaviest smash play of the entire war with three deck banner headlines evening and morning papers”.(note to Spaatz). And most critical, though I won’t tell you why right now, And shortly after the surrender, “… unfortunate that we were never able to launch the full power of our bombing attack with the B-29s…” to convince the “doubting Thomases” of how devastating the conventional attack would have been. Also to Spaatz. The last point is crucial, but I’m bored. Likely later.

After which, I know you will go read HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY,: THE MYTHS OF REVISIONISM chap. 1, ed. and chap 1 by Robert James Maddox, a man who really doesn’t like nuclear weapons, generally.

 

[otjm]

I did not mention samurai; I mentioned bushido, which is the code. To which I would add, sepuku, carried out by commanders after their losses.

Hey, I understand that you don’t get it. You can keep coming back with all of your comments. Your comment about “economy” would be amusing if it were not a snide remark; Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Japanese were saved, not to mention forces on our side (the expectation was that an invasion would result in a likely 1,000,000 casualties of US troops).

Given the 21,000 casualties taking Iwo Jima and the 82,000 causalities taking Okinawa, they were not some pipe dream estimations of our losses taking all of the Japanese islands.

Oh, and there is out there somewhere a film made of Japanese high school girls being taught how to charge troops with a sharpened pole. After the loss of Okinawa, Japan made a change in the law, allowing the drafting of boys, 15 and older, and girls, 17 and older for front line service.

 

[GKMotley]

How much are they worth against the continuing bloodshed through the theater, until the surrender?. Giancgreco. or for that matter, Gruhl/IMPERIAL JAPAN’S WORLD WAR TWO?

 

[GKMotley]

The regnant military bushido, as preached in WWII, was something of a blood-thirsty variant of the original. Hence, THE KNIGHTS OF BUSHIDO/Edward Frederick Langley Russell, 2nd Baron Russell of Liverpool.

 

[Hume]

Your comment about “economy” would be amusing if it were not a snide remark; Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Japanese were saved, not to mention forces on our side (the expectation was that an invasion would result in a likely 1,000,000 casualties of US troops).

Sure. Nuke them or we’ll lose a million in an invasion.

This false dichotomy is precisely what led the general American public to believe that the atomic bombs were necessary.

It’s genuinely absurd.

It’s equivalent to beating a guy to a pulp and then when he’s on the ground and unresponsive, kicking him twice as hard as you can.

Given the 21,000 casualties taking Iwo Jima and the 82,000 causalities taking Okinawa, they were not some pipe dream estimations of our losses taking all of the Japanese islands.

As shown above, the Japanese lost control of their own airspace. MacArthur’s invasion was not necessary.

Oh, and there is out there somewhere a film made of Japanese high school girls being taught how to charge troops with a sharpened pole.

And the Poles once tried charging German panzers on horseback.

 

[otjm]

20k soldiers were actually present in Hiroshima.

Headquarters for the Second General Army, 59th Army, 5th Division and the 224th Division, 5 batteries of the 3rd anti-aircraft division, units of the 121st and 122nd anti aircraft Regiments and the 22nd and 45th Separate anti aircraft Divisions, lead to the estimate of 40,000 troops.

I take it you have never been in the military.

In any event, you are welcome to your opinions.

 

[GKMotley]

Years ago, there was a poster on the old board here, who was of Japanese descent and whose mother was incorporated into the civilian levies for the Ketshu-go defense. Trained with either a lunge grenade or a bamboo spear; I don’t recall which.