Is it immoral to use nuclear weapons in war?

[GKMotley]

A young physicist who had declined to work for the Manhattan project, on moral principles, was in Japan about 15 years after the war, on an unrelated physics project. He talked with a number of Japanese scientists, who happened to have be working in various military areas during the war. Curious, he asked what sort of a demonstration would have been necessary to convince the Japanese war leaders that they should give up, short of dropping the bomb on a target, expecting a response of “Off shore high altitude burst” or something like that. All he spoke with were quite puzzled, at the question, and his failure to appreciate the nature of the war, as Japan saw it, and how the country was run. Wilson concluded that any such concept of the utility of a demonstration reflected a gross misunderstanding of Westerners, of the Japanese mind. The quotes are in Newman, op. cit., chap. 4: “Whatever verdict history will pass on the need to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki… when the matter is put in terms of the Japanese values generally accepted during the war, Japanese scientists themselves can suggest no realistic alternative to what happened. that there might have been a premilitary demonstration of the atom bomb turns out to be another of history’s myths”.

A good chapter, in a good book. I commend it to you. And can commend others.

And, of course, the bomb was demonstrated. About 1900 feet above and 800 feet south east west of the Aioi bridge. Quite effectively demonstrated what it would do and had done, no imagination required. It didn’t change the war leaders’ minds.

 

[PetraG]

And, of course, the bomb was demonstrated. About 1900 feet above and 800 feet south east west of the Aioi bridge. Quite effectively demonstrated what it would do and had done, no imagination required. It didn’t change the war leaders’ minds.

Well, and can modern humans be convinced not to engage in total war? Is it possible to convince civilians that they are intrinsically different than combatants? I don’t mean pacifists, but the attitude and actions of civilian populations in favor of the modern war being carried on by their own governments. I’d hope so, but the answer differs.

 

[GKMotley]

I’d hope so, too. I spent a career hoping so. My child is nearing an end of career point, hoping so.

 

[vz71]

No one expects the …return of the topic.

Usually it is in August and December every year.

I guess lockdown is having an effect.

 

[GKMotley]

I’m getting a lot of books read, for what it’s worth. And my hair is longer that it’s been since graduate school.

 

[JimG]

The need was not just for unconditional surrender on paper. Truman knew that if the Japanese did not give up, the consequence would be unrelenting terrorist attacks during Allied occupation. This wasn’t about making them cry “uncle.” This really was about stopping the bloodshed, period. Let’s not make Truman out to be a bloodless bureaucrat who only cared about American lives; that is not just.

I agree that the decision to use the two atomic bombs was about stopping the bloodshed as quickly as possible.

Given that invasion plans were already ongoing, and the terrible death toll that was expected as a consequence, it may be that Truman’s decision to use the bombs saved hundreds of thousands of lives, both Allied and Japanese, by ending the war quickly.

 

[IWantGod]

Hi everyone. I believe that it is immoral to use nuclear weapons in war and it can never be justified.

Only a fallen race of creatures would create something as destructive and morally despicable as a nuclear bomb and try to justify it.

Drop it on a city full of civilians? They’ve got some nerve.

 

[tafan2]

It is immoral to target civilians and non-combatants in a just war. Collateral damage killing us nit necessarily immoral, assuming all steps were taken to mitigate it and the target is military.

 

[PetraG]

Given that invasion plans were already ongoing, and the terrible death toll that was expected as a consequence, it may be that Truman’s decision to use the bombs saved hundreds of thousands of lives, both Allied and Japanese, by ending the war quickly.

Do you think, however, that there is any way it could be justified to use today’s atomic bombs?

The Atomic Bombs of WWII Were Catastrophic, But Today’s Nuclear Bombs Are Even More Terrifying

Both atomic and thermonuclear bombs are capable of mass destruction, but there are some big differences.

www.popularmechanics.com

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

Infographic: Nuclear weapons in 1945 and 2018: A comparison - Times of India

World News: August 6 marks the day the US dropped an atomic bomb named "Little Boy" on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, the second bomb named "Fa

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

How do we justify the size and expense of our arsenal in any of the top countries, let alone the US or Russia? What, we did we argue to ourselves that in a conflict with the USSR, one nation might lose because they ran out of bullets?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(I think we did it because, provided certain other less-popular needs were neglected on the premise that they were impossibly expensive, our economy could take the demand of financing such insanity while the economy of the USSR could not.)

I have seen the bumper sticker below dismissed as a “leftist” sentiment, which implies that it is unpatriotic to think school funding could ever compete with military funding:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I don’t think it is fair to blame lack of local funding on national budgetary priorities–I believe in local control and funding for schools–but at the same time it is a bit amazing how we kept building nuclear weapons far beyond anything that could be described as a need by a moral thinker.

I agree that there is no moral use for a bomb of the typical size we have stocked in our nuclear arsenal. It would always result in gross over-destruction, both in immediate extent and in duration of the effects. It is not even a close call.

 

[vz71]

Do you think, however, that there is any way it could be justified to use today’s atomic bombs?

I could see a legitimate military application.

 

[EndTimes]

The history of the endgame in the Pacific is immensely complicated, and a hobby of mine for over 25 years. I often find myself drawing on that hobby, when this general subject appears and drifts into this area. I always hope it doesn’t. I’ve posted more than enough on it.

The current and future story of events in the Western Pacific and East China Sea - are of interest as well

Anti-Ship Missiles - some which sport tact-nukes - turn huge ships into floating target practice

As too - has Covid-19 itself sorely impinged upon even some AC-Carriers

• shutting them down for a spell along with not just a few personnel…

 

[pnewton]

The Church has declared their use to be immoral. However, the Catholic Church comments on morality, not science. Might there be a role for a smaller tactical nuke that is limited enough to kill only what absolutely must be killed? It is possible. For example, if one could nuke an incoming nuke, that would have to be considered an act of self-defense. I guess the technical application is best left to experts, hopefully acting with moral conscience.

FYI - Not only does the use of nuclear weapons require the approval of the President, increasing yield of conventional weapons require approval at a rank commensurate with the level of their yield. The United States military really does its best to minimize collateral damage.

 

[PetraG]

I could see a legitimate military application.

I can’t. I can’t think of any situation in the last 200 years that called for a bomb as devastating as
the ones in our arsenal now. What morally legitimate target would anybody have dropped a 450 kt bomb onto?

 

[JimG]

Do you think, however, that there is any way it could be justified to use today’s atomic bombs?

Probably not. Since many nations now have nuclear weapons, any use would invite retaliation and escalation.

 

[PetraG]

Probably not. Since many nations now have nuclear weapons, any use would invite retaliation and escalation.

Well, there is that, too.

 

[VonDerTann]

The issue is not what legitimate target such a huge bomb is aimed at. The issue is the fact that you have such a bomb at all.

Deterrence - including by huge bombs - has in fact kept the peace between major combatants since 1945.

 

[PetraG]

The issue is not what legitimate target such a huge bomb is aimed at. The issue is the fact that you have such a bomb at all.

Deterrence - including by huge bombs - has in fact kept the peace between major combatants since 1945.

So, we’re protected by giving the impression that there is no moral boundary on what we will do in the military sphere?

Is that moral?

 

[VonDerTann]

Why wouldn’t it be?

Is it morally impermissible that your enemies be scared of you?

Is it a moral imperative that I - or a nation - have to look like a milquetoast?

 

[PetraG]

Why wouldn’t it be?

Is it morally impermissible that your enemies be scared of you?

Is it a moral imperative that I - or a nation - have to look like a milquetoast?

Well, it was a question. Does even keeping such an extremely powerful weapon not amount to threatening to commit a crime against humanity? I could be wrong, but I think we have been careful not to promise that we would not fire a nuclear weapon unless we were fired upon with a substantially similar weapon, right? In that context, are we not reserving the right to make such an attack first?
Does it not make such threats a legitimate dimension of any sovereign nation’s foreign policy?
Surely, we ought to find anything we do to be something tolerable for another sovereign nation to do, if we are only accomplishing a morally-acceptable form of self-defense, right?

 

[VonDerTann]

Keeping a powerful weapon is no more threatening a crime against humanity, than it is a crime against humanity to own a gun and post a sign on your house, “This property protected by Smith & Wesson.”

Historically, there have been many times where 1) projecting strength and 2) projecting the willingness to use it; basically kept the peace.

Jimmy Carter was committed to peace, and negotiations. The Russians laughed at him and shamelessly lied to him and his envoys about their intentions throughout the world. Ayatollah Kohmeni called the US under Carter a “headless chicken” and seized the US embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for over a year. They knew there would be no consequences for doing so, and under Carter they were correct. Under Carter, the Soivet Union AKA the evil empire expanded its influence throughout the world.

Ronald Reagan by contrast was thought of as a cowboy who would nuke anyone who got in his way. Don’t think for a minute the Iranians weren’t terrified; he got elected; suddenly the hostages were freed. Not that many years later - largely thanks to Reagan and Pope John Paul II with some backup by Maggie Thatcher - the Soviet Union was no more, in large part because it couldn’t compete economically with a US military buildup and basically spent itself into oblivion.

I’ve often wondered whether the Japanese would have bombed Pearl Harbor at all if, in 1941, the US had an army of 2 million men; modern tanks; and a modern navy - none of which it possessed on December 7, 1941.