Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cicada_3301
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We didn’t have to do it. We could have let Gen. MacArthur proceed with his invasion. We could have waited a few months while Japan starved. That’s why I was curious as to whether any general had a plan to end the war–quickly.
 
You are correct. They were seeking a way to end the war, without losing it, at the table. Increasingly desperate. Until the rigged gozen kaigan on 9-10 Aug. And things came to an end.
 
Last edited:
I still think its apt. Look at the size of these countries that supply terrorists. The usa can desroy them.But we have Christian values and do not want to harm innocent people by nuking them.
 
No. Though it was certainly hoped and expected that the bomb would do so.

They did.
 
Lol, listen.

It’s pretty clear that most of your major military brass weren’t pro-nuke. It’s also clear that at least Eisenhower and MacArthur thought Japan wanted to surrender.

Now, you can insist that this was never told to Truman, but I find that a little hard to swallow.

“We absolutely had to nuke them to end the war!”

Jingoism. Pure and simple. If the allied commanders aren’t on your side, then your view requires that they be wrong.

It’s amazing what people will try to say and do to defend entrenched ideology. Jingoism is no different.

If MacArthur and Eisenhower thought the Japanese were trying to surrender…

…then guess what?

They were probably trying to surrender.

Jingoism. Pure and simple. The bombs weren’t necessary on authority of most of the fellas actually running the war.

“But they’re wrong! As military types often are!”

Jingoism.
 
JimG said:
We didn’t have to do it. We could have let Gen. MacArthur proceed with his invasion. We could have waited a few months while Japan starved. That’s why I was curious as to whether any general had a plan to end the war–quickly.
Click to expand...
It seems that Gen Mac thought the Japanese were trying to surrender…
 
Neither MAcArthur, or Esienhower made any reference, anywhere, to the JApanese being ready to surrender.

Give a citation. I’ll wait. Likely I’ll go to sleep. Got a Chesterton to reread and a Niven SF to finish.

Leahy might have, no proof. Whether he would have meant it, not sure. But he personally didn’t like the beast. As he said in his autobio.
 
No he didn’t. It would have messed up his invasion Need a citation to shred.
 
Didn’t you already admit that Japan was trying to surrender via Russia?
 
GKMotley said:
Neither MAcArthur, or Esienhower made any reference, anywhere, to the JApanese being ready to surrender.

Give a citation. I’ll wait. Likely I’ll go to sleep. Got a Chesterton to reread and a Niven SF to finish.

Leahy might have, no proof. Whether he would have meant it, not sure. But he personally didn’t like the beast. As he said in his autobio.
Click to expand...
Lol, this is perfect. Perfect.

“I demand secret notes from the White House meetings themselves if I’m to change my view.”

An entrenched ideologue made exemplar!
 
Last edited:
The USA has the best defensive military. Imho
The terrorists see death and suicide as a gift to Allah.
The past tells us what to do in the future at least that’s what my History teacher son tells me. We learn from it.
 
You did above. To me. I told you you confirmed the Alperovitz article I posted.
 
Which meeting, secret or otherwise, in the White House, with MacArthur or Eisenhower, are you thinking of?
 
Last edited:
No. Alperovitz is not a reliable source. But he is a doyen of revisionism. Otherwise, not sure of what you are thinking.

If you are thinking of the Sato/Togo messages, then No. I suspect the totality of the situation is in the thread somewhere above. Or, if you are a book person I can give you page citations in 3-4 books on that, to start you off. You are mistaken.

Right now, you’re keeping me from Chesterton,
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
No. Alperovitz is not a reliable source. But he is a doyen of revisionism. Otherwise, not sure of what you are thinking.
Click to expand...
Quite right. Anyone failing to affirm the jingoist “orthodox” position of “we had to bomb them” is surely a buffoon.

MacArthur, Eisenhower, Halsey and all the others most definitely included!
 
Last edited:
Are you saying surrender in the terms of unconditional surrender? Because above you agreed they were trying to surrender through Russia. Are you using two senses of the term?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top