Should we have dropped Atomic bombs on Japan

[austenbosten]

There were plenty of military bases that could have been bombed and wiped out, but the documents are clear that the targets must be nestled within an urban area. They did not say “we can only find urban-located military targets”, but rather “the targets should be in an urban area”. These areas were not targeted in spite of being urban centers, they were targeted because they were urban centers, and the documents make this explicit.

Then list them please and list a target that cannot already be destroyed with conventional weaponry.

I’ve never claimed that they didn’t think things through, I’m saying that their decision was morally wrong.

So you would have been fine with the alternatives leading to a million deaths from both sides?

or the continuation of the fire-bombing campaigns that killed far more Japanese than the atom bombs?

What precisely is it about the atomic bombings that you object to?

Kyoto was actually the originally decided upon target, but Stimson took it off the list for personal reasons. It was chosen again, and he again took it off for personal reasons. Stimson had been to Kyoto as a child and didn’t want to see it destroyed right off, but it was the priority target initially.

True it was, but once again it was 1 of 2 targets out of 6 that were selected purely for their “psychological value” and neither were chosen because no matter where the bombs were dropped there would be a psychological value to them.

Re-read what I said: I said that Hiroshima was targeted because the terrain would maximize the destructive potential of the bomb.

Sorry you cannot take one data point and make that the argument. Hiroshima was considered for it’s military and industrial value. The terrain only further made it an appropriate target.

What’s more, urban means civilian in peacetime and in war, and wanton destruction of civilian property is morally forbidden.

No Urban means city. A City full of military, commercial and industrial targets. That poor line of reasoning means that if urban=civilian than there are no civilians in rural and suburban areas.

The fact remains that urban, civilian territory was intentionally targeted precisely because it was well-developed and populated, not in spite of it.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, because factories, communication and transportation hubs, commerce facilities, ammo depots, ports, and military targets aren’t placed in non-populated areas. You were right in saying they sought to target urban areas, you were right in saying that urban areas are heavily populated…however you take these facts and make a poor argument claiming that the US was blood lusting and wanted to solely use the atom bombs to target purely civilians.

From President Harry S. Truman’s Secret Diary (link)

…The [atom bomb] is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War Mr Stimson to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old Capital [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo]. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement [the Potsdam Declaration on the 26th]* asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance.*

Regardless of what your beliefs are you cannot argue that the targets were not chosen for their military value.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Once again, the entire argument is that more people would have died if the bombs weren’t dropped. This is irrelevant to the moral value of the action. Morality is not a numbers game. The ends do not justify the means. Ever. The amount of lives that would have been saved is irrelevant.

It is also irrelevant to say “Well what the U.S.A. would have done is worse!” So? If so, that would have been wrong too. Just because they were going to choose to do the wrong thing from a moral standpoint either way is not an excuse to do the wrong thing. They should have made a moral choice, no matter what choice they made. Catholics are not consequentialists, and the massacre of civilians is NEVER justifed, military target or not military target.

 

[JimG]

Once again, the entire argument is that more people would have died if the bombs weren’t dropped. This is irrelevant to the moral value of the action. Morality is not a numbers game. The ends do not justify the means. Ever. The amount of lives that would have been saved is irrelevant.

It is also irrelevant to say “Well what the U.S.A. would have done is worse!” So? If so, that would have been wrong too. Just because they were going to choose to do the wrong thing from a moral standpoint either way is not an excuse to do the wrong thing. They should have made a moral choice, no matter what choice they made. Catholics are not consequentialists, and the massacre of civilians is NEVER justifed, military target or not military target.

So what was the moral choice for Truman to have made?

Several considerations: Allied casualties alone were running over 7,000 per week in the Pacific Theater, 1,000 per day, not counting Japanese casualties. It’s too late to take back the firebombing of Tokyo, in which more were killed than by the atom bombs.

I suppose your answer will be that the moral choice is to attack only military targets, no matter how many casualties mount as the war drags on. And ultimately, an invasion will likely be required, sooner rather than later. The body bags were already ordered for the invasion. Troops coming back from the European Theater were now being sent to the Pacific Theater. Now, I realize Truman did not have a moral theologian on staff, so he might not have been able to justify to his own satisfaction the idea of opting for the largest possible number of casualties rather than the least.

A decision based on consequentialst considerations? Sure.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Several considerations…

These are not considerations. They mean nothing to the moral quality of the act.

I suppose your answer will be that the moral choice is to attack only military targets, no matter how many casualties mount as the war drags on.

Yes.

And ultimately, an invasion will likely be required, sooner rather than later. The body bags were already ordered for the invasion. Troops coming back from the European Theater were now being sent to the Pacific Theater. Now, I realize Truman did not have a moral theologian on staff, so he might not have been able to justify to his own satisfaction the idea of opting for the largest possible number of casualties rather than the least.

A decision based on consequentialst considerations? Sure.

Who said I’m blaming Truman? Who says I’m blaming anybody there? I wouldn’t want to be in his place, that’s for sure. Honestly, if push came to shove, I probably would have dropped the bomb, for all the reasons you said. I agree-it saved more lives than it killed.

It would still be wrong. The massacre of civilians is always wrong. And consequentialism is never right, even in war.

 

[bilop]

Once again, the entire argument is that more people would have died if the bombs weren’t dropped. This is irrelevant to the moral value of the action. Morality is not a numbers game. The ends do not justify the means. Ever. The amount of lives that would have been saved is irrelevant.

It is also irrelevant to say “Well what the U.S.A. would have done is worse!” So? If so, that would have been wrong too. Just because they were going to choose to do the wrong thing from a moral standpoint either way is not an excuse to do the wrong thing. They should have made a moral choice, no matter what choice they made. Catholics are not consequentialists, and the massacre of civilians is NEVER justifed, military target or not military target.

Your moral decisions are constrained by the choices available to you. In war, many times the only choice is among bad options. Truman did not have the option to do nothing in 1945; he had to attack Japan in some way.

And you are wrong about your last statement. If a legitimate military target exists, you can attack it, even if many civilians will be killed. You cannot directly target civilians, but as long as the intended target is military, civilians deaths are a secondary effect.

e.g. an enemy machine gun is firing on troops from a house full of civilians. The troops are 100% moral in firing back, even if it destroys the house and kills all the civilians.

God Bless

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Your moral decisions are constrained by the choices available to you. In war, many times the only choice is among bad options. Truman did not have the option to do nothing in 1945; he had to attack Japan in some way.

And you are wrong about your last statement. If a legitimate military target exists, you can attack it, even if many civilians will be killed. You cannot directly target civilians, but as long as the intended target is military, civilians deaths are a secondary effect.

The military target has to be more than just legitimate, it has to be of enough importance to warrant the attack (AA gun in an urban area within the main thrust of the attack- ok, AA gun in an urban area to far away from the thrust to be considered a threat- not ok) and you have to take every reasonable precaution to minimize the amount of civilians deaths caused by the attack (single laser guided missle w/ a warhead large enough to just do the job- ok, carpet bombing several city blocks- not ok)

e.g. an enemy machine gun is firing on troops from a house full of civilians. The troops are 100% moral in firing back, even if it destroys the house and kills all the civilians.

Yes, if the machine gun position can not be bypassed and isolated and only if they use the proper amount of force to do the job and, once again, with the reasonable precautions taken to reduce the amount of civilian deaths

God Bless

 

[Marc_Anthony]

oldcatholicguy, correct.

The dropping of the bombs was not the unfortunate death of civilians due to responding to an aggressive force. It was dropping a bomb on a city of civilians.

 

[austenbosten]

So the fact that a bomb was dropped on a city that had civilians present along with military and industrial targets. It is immoral to do so?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

So the fact that a bomb was dropped on a city that had civilians present along with military and industrial targets. It is immoral to do so?

Depends on the bomb. An atomic bomb, yes because of it’s destructive power. A laser or GPS guided one, almost all the time no (assuming the warhead size is appropiate for the target). A “dumb” bomb, depends on to many factors to list here.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The thing was, almost no effort was made to try and prevent civilians from getting killed. It was, “We get what we want, and if civilians are killed while we get it, well, who cares as long as the war ends?”

 

[Ghosty]

Then list them please and list a target that cannot already be destroyed with conventional weaponry.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here. There were military outposts and bases all over Eastern Asia, and I wouldn’t list them all if I could. I don’t see what the point about not being targetable by conventional weaponry, either. The question isn’t whether or not an atom bomb can be used, but rather how its targets are selected.

What precisely is it about the atomic bombings that you object to?

I’ll say it again: you can’t target non-combatants. They may be unintended collateral damage, but they can’t be the direct target nor intended collateral damage, the latter being the case in this instance.

       True it was, but once again it was 1 of 2 targets out of 6 that  were selected purely for their "psychological value" and neither were  chosen because no matter where the bombs were dropped there would be a  psychological value to them.

None were selected “purely” for their psychological impact. All of them, except the Emperor’s Palace, had strategic military value as well. My point is that the psychological impact of widespread, instantaneous destruction of whole cities was an important factor in the targeting decisions.

       Sorry you cannot take one data point and make that the argument.  Hiroshima was considered for it's military and industrial value. The  terrain only further made it an appropriate target.

Hiroshima was also considered because it was an urban center. The focusing effect comment merely highlights that maximizing devastation was indeed a “positive” factor in their target selection, not an unintended side-effect.

No Urban means city. A City full of military, commercial and industrial targets. That poor line of reasoning means that if urban=civilian than there are no civilians in rural and suburban areas.

Saying that an urban center is full of civilians does not rule out rural areas having civilians, that’s just absurd. There were non-city targets available, but they were set aside in favor of urban ones, and that means that urban settings were targeted precisely because they were dense population centers where the power of the bomb could be immediately realized, and the Japanese government would not be able to ignore the power and will of the U.S. military.

You were right in saying they sought to target urban areas, you were right in saying that urban areas are heavily populated…however you take these facts and make a poor argument claiming that the US was blood lusting and wanted to solely use the atom bombs to target purely civilians.

I have never said that the U.S. was bloodlusting, nor have I even said that they were purely targeting civilians. I said that civilian population density was a positive factor in determining placement of the bombs because of the psychological impact and the show of destructive power only such a target could provide.

Regardless of what your beliefs are you cannot argue that the targets were not chosen for their military value.

I never have. I’ve simply pointed out that they weren’t chosen solely for their military value, and that’s the problem. Had they been chosen solely for their military value, even if the exact same targets were selected, it wouldn’t be a moral problem (or at least not the same problem, as proportionality would be a factor). The problem is that they were selected because they were high-density urban centers, rather than in spite of them being such.

Peace and God bless!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The thing was, almost no effort was made to try and prevent civilians from getting killed. It was, “We get what we want, and if civilians are killed while we get it, well, who cares as long as the war ends?”

High civilian casualties was intended.

 

[Ghosty]

High civilian casualties was intended.

It should be pointed out that, insofar as this is true (and I don’t know how true it is), the casualties were intended for the psychological impact on the Japanese government, not just to kill Japanese people. Their deaths were a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Peace and God bless!

 

[austenbosten]

Depends on the bomb. An atomic bomb, yes because of it’s destructive power. A laser or GPS guided one, almost all the time no (assuming the warhead size is appropiate for the target). A “dumb” bomb, depends on to many factors to list here.

That is ridiculous. It doesn’t how many lives are lost overall, but whether or not what kind of bomb was used is??. (BTW they didn’t have laser-guided bombs back then). This line of thinking is absurd.

The alternative was the invasion of Japan and millions of Japanese civilians would perish in that bloody battle.

The thing was, almost no effort was made to try and prevent civilians from getting killed. It was, “We get what we want, and if civilians are killed while we get it, well, who cares as long as the war ends?”

What in God’s name could Truman do Marc?

This wasn’t 2012 we’re talking about, he couldn’t just text every civilian in Hiroshima “Hey if you are not a fanatical enemy combatant please get out of the city cause it’s going poof!”

No effort was made, No effort was made? You insult every American diplomat who tried desperately to end the war before those damned bombs were dropped. Japan’s leaders (with the exception of a few smart men) would have none of it! It wasn’t until Hirohito got off of his “godly” throne and accepted a surrender.

If any blame is to be placed, it lies solely at the feet of the Japanese “hawk” military commanders who still stuck to their zealous banzai code, and Emperor Hirohito who did nothing to spare the lives of his own people…in fact he was wanted an American invasion.

 

[GKC]

It should be pointed out that, insofar as this is true (and I don’t know how true it is), the casualties were intended for the psychological impact on the Japanese government, not just to kill Japanese people. Their deaths were a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Peace and God bless!

Correct, if properly understood.

And I’m why you know it, I suspect. The use of the bombs were not intended primarily to destroy the military assets in the target cities (though they mainly achieved that). Nor to kill people, though they did that too. Atomic weapons were not necessary for those ends; continuing raids of B-sans would do the same thing. The bombs were intended to shock the recalcitrant members of the Saiko Senso Shido Kaigi into the realization that the Four Conditions could not be achieved by the Ketsugo defense plan. It was the economy of 1 plane, 1 bomb, which allowed what actually occurred (details are part of that complicated thing, history), at the second gozen kaigen, late on 10 August. They were intended to cause the end of the war, in as short a time as possible. Which they did.

The extent to which you do not know if this is true is likely related to the extent to which your readings in the subject are not sufficient.

As always, history, not the RC judgement of morality, etc, etc.

Irresistible, I calls it. By my count, this puts me over 500 posts in these threads, over the past 4 years.

GKC

 

[Ghosty]

Correct, if properly understood.

And I’m why you know it, I suspect. The use of the bombs were not intended primarily to destroy the military assets in the target cities (though they mainly achieved that). Nor to kill people, though they did that too. Atomic weapons were not necessary for those ends; continuing raids of B-sans would do the same thing. The bombs were intended to shock the recalcitrant members of the Saiko Senso Shido Kaigi into the realization that the Four Conditions could not be achieved by the Ketsugo defense plan. It was the economy of 1 plane, 1 bomb, which allowed what actually occurred (details are part of that complicated thing, history), at the second gozen kaigen, late on 10 August. They were intended to cause the end of the war, in as short a time as possible. Which they did.

The extent to which you do not know if this is true is likely related to the extent to which your readings in the subject are not sufficient.

As always, history, not the RC judgement of morality, etc, etc.

Irresistible, I calls it. By my count, this puts me over 500 posts in these threads, over the past 4 years.

GKC

It wasn’t just from you’re posts, but you definitely helped solidify my understanding and I thank you for it.

I’ve not come across anything that specifically says that a high casualty rate was aimed for, which is why I said I don’t know to what extent it is true, but it’s the obvious implication of all the plans and “clean speak”. After all, without a high casualty rate the proposed “shock and awe” wouldn’t have been so shocking or awful.

What documents have you come across that detail the casualty rates that were intended/anticipated? I’m very interested in learning more about that angle specifically.

Peace and God bless!

 

[GKC]

It wasn’t just from you’re posts, but you definitely helped solidify my understanding and I thank you for it.

I’ve not come across anything that specifically says that a high casualty rate was aimed for, which is why I said I don’t know to what extent it is true, but it’s the obvious implication of all the plans and “clean speak”. After all, without a high casualty rate the proposed “shock and awe” wouldn’t have been so shocking or awful.

What documents have you come across that detail the casualty rates that were intended/anticipated? I’m very interested in learning more about that angle specifically.

Peace and God bless!

There was no specific anticipated casualty figure I know of (not to say that there were none, and I may even have read and forgotten them), save that it was hoped to be high. There was no experience with dropping the things, at all, not to mention over built up areas. What was hoped for was as big an effect as possible (hence the original aiming point of the Nagasaki bomb, which would have been more deadly than the actual hypocenter), to equate to the multi-plane, multi-day raids on Tokyo, for example. The contrast of the 1 plane, 1 bomb, to 500 plane raids over several days, was the shock and awe hoped for. It took two, and some behind the scenes maneuvering by the peace faction, but it worked.

In fact, among the things hoped for in Hiroshima was a successful drop, period. No one had exploded a uranium bomb, in any sense. It was expected to work, but…Imagine if the bomb had not exploded, floated down to land at the T crossing of the Aioi bridge, and wound up in the hands of Dr. Yoshio Nishima. It was terra incognito. Recall what Oppenheimer had told Marshall could be done with the next production bombs, with respect to OLYMPIC, and what Marshall was then planning to do. Nobody knew.

As always, Frank/DOWNFALL is the first man to read, though I recently finished Coffey’s IMPERIAL TRAGEDY, which is illuminating.

GKC

 

[snowguru]

Well, I say that we should not have done so. You cannot do evil to bring about good. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that every act of war which is dedicated to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas is a crime against both God and man: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2314.htm

You’re right. War alone is a crime and innocents end up being the 1s murdered. Thought alot about this topic over the years. It’s bad when innocents who don’t want part of war end up being the 1s killed as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki-the kids born in 1944 killed in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are innocent war victims. My view to repeat always has and will be that the atom bombs should’ve been dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths (such as several thousand as opposed to hundreds of thousands) and most Japanese are fine people. With that said, if Japan had atom bombs they’d have used them against us. Most Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors have said that while they believe the atom bombs should’ve been dropped elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths or not used @ all, they usu. don’t blame us for using them. President Harry S. Truman made a bad choice but his bad choice ended the war. With WW2, there were no good choices, only bad 1s. President Harry S. Truman’s intent was good though the way he did it was a bad choice.

Anyhow, war alone that you wrote about is a bad thing and there were only bad, immoral and wrong choices available to President Harry S. Truman. President Harry S. Truman had the bad choice to drop the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which he did or drop the atom bombs elsewhere in Japan with fewer civilian deaths which I would’ve done but it would still be a bad choice because kids born in 1944 would’ve been killed though in fewer #s but admittedly can’t guarantee that it would’ve ended the war. Worst choice would’ve been a ground war with Japan, as the Japs would’ve used women and children in combat including kamikaze missions-Japanese women and children were committing suicides in Okinawa and Saipan by jumping off of cliffs to death. Japanese samurai code was Bushido & surrender was viewed as dishonorable or shameful-suicide by seppukku or hara-kiri as preferred. Dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is immoral, but the immoral, wrong or bad choice to drop atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagsaki did end the war and again, if both Germany and Japan had the atom bombs, they would’ve used them against us. Killing is a serious matter because you have to live with that choice and President Harry S. Truman while believing he did right thing in dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending WW2 was traumatized over the kids killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Catholic columnist Patrick J. Buchanan believes-those killed in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are innocent war victims and it’s bad that they were killed but what was good that came out of it is that the war ended. See Hiroshima, Nagasaki & Christian morality by Patrick J. Buchanan

 

[austenbosten]

The problem with that line of reasoning of “Well the US should have dropped the bombs in an uninhabited area to scare them.” is that it took 2 annihilations of two large cities to bring about Japan to surrender. The fact that Hiroshima wasn’t enough proves the fallacy of “just nuking a rice paddy to scare them” Nine days after Hiroshima, the US nuked Nagasaki…it was then Emperor Hirohito decided to demand a surrender. Remember it was Hitrohito who caused Japan’s surrender and an end to her suffering, because Japan’s leaders were still adamant to fight to the death.

So that rules that out.

 

[Ghosty]

The problem with that line of reasoning of “Well the US should have dropped the bombs in an uninhabited area to scare them.” is that it took 2 annihilations of two large cities to bring about Japan to surrender. The fact that Hiroshima wasn’t enough proves the fallacy of “just nuking a rice paddy to scare them” Nine days after Hiroshima, the US nuked Nagasaki…it was then Emperor Hirohito decided to demand a surrender. Remember it was Hitrohito who caused Japan’s surrender and an end to her suffering, because Japan’s leaders were still adamant to fight to the death.

So that rules that out.

No one is claiming that nuking other targets would have had the same effect. We’re saying that no matter how good the effect, you can’t intentionally target civilians or indiscriminately cause their destruction.

Murdering a massive amount of civilians and military personel all at once, while also wiping out civilian and military property on a grand scale, is a highly effective means of psychological terrorism. It can make even evil Empires submit and end senseless wars. It is also absolutely morally wrong, and has been unequivocally condemned, and had been prior to WWII.

Peace and God bless!