The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[PolarGuy]

Latias, you’re committing the classic debate fallacy of “changing the subject when you don’t have any response to what’s put to you.” I’m giving specific examples of why the atomic bomb use was justified - so you want to talk about the Eastern Front in WWII, as if that has any real relevance to A-bomb use (it doesn’t; I cited the Germans to give historical context to how bad the Japanese really were, and to which you’ve not responded).

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes, the A-bomb’s use was justified.
.

Not according to Informed US military leaders who disagreed with the bombing:
“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
“The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons… The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion , and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
It was wrong to use the atomic bomb against Japan.

 

[edwest2]

US casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan in 1945-1946 (and WWII would have lasted until 1946 at earliest) ran to over 1 million allied casualties, to say nothing of the carnage to be inflicted on the Japanese.

It would have been the worst carnage ever seen in the history of the earth.

This true example sums it up: All allied soldiers killed or wounded in battle were and still are awarded the “purple heart” medal. Before the A-bomb’s use, the US authorities placed a huge order for “purple heart” medals with the anticipation of a huge need to award them to all those injured in battle, or awarded posthumously in the event of death, for an invasion of Japan. This order was delivered.

Now, 65 years later, all US purple hearts awarded since then: In Korea; Vietnam; Iraq; and a dozen other places – are still being awarded from the supply of medals delivered in 1945 to the US government, and never used then (since the invasion didn’t occur). If you are a US soldier wounded in Iraq, your purple heart will be circa 1945. That gives you some idea of the expected casualties.

Was the A-bomb use justified? Yes; absolutely.

To anyone who disagrees, please advise if you would have volunteered to be in first wave of landing craft heading toward Japan’s beaches on the morning of November 1, 1945…

(I didn’t think so!)

Fire bombing had proved very effective. Japanese aircraft could do little to the B-29s. Supplies were running out for the Japanese. The Russians, on the other hand, could care less about how many men they would have lost invading Japan. They were not our Allies at that point.

Ed

 

[Tomdstone]

Objectively speaking, the destruction of entire cities seems unjustifiable. .

Yes it does.
Gaudium et spes 80, 81:
“Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.”
“…we say it again: the arms race is an utterly treacherous trap for humanity…”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

 

[RyanBlack]

Was the A-bomb use justified? Yes; absolutely.

Only in a pragmatic or utilitarian sense. Not in terms of just war principles, and not in terms of the teaching that one may never do evil that good may come.

 

[tryphon]

I’ve heard it argued that we could have forced Japan’s surrender by dropping the bombs off shore instead of inland.

My thoughts exactly. Having been to Hiroshima and having seen the horrible consequences of the bomb, I think it was a case of revenge for Pearl Harbor. A couple of bombs offshore would have brought about Japan’s surrender anyway.

 

[PolarGuy]

And yet…no one here can point to any viable options other than the atomic bomb.

Would anyone like to weigh in on that? Or is “we all just go home and let the Japanese recover” the strategy?

Certainly firebombing was NOT going to end the war, and I don’t think anyone at the time really saw that as a valid option to do so - particularly since the bombing of Germany really wasn’t at all decisive in the war in Europe.

I still don’t see anyone volunteering for the first wave of landing craft.

 

[BackHand]

I don’t think so because too many children were burned to death as a result.

The Nanking Massacre.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Severed heads were used to keep score in Japanese execution contests

The Bataan death march.

 

[Tomdstone]

Only in a pragmatic or utilitarian sense. Not in terms of just war principles, and not in terms of the teaching that one may never do evil that good may come.

Right.

 

[PolarGuy]

Can anyone point to the following:

1. Any way around the practical problems of “demonstrating an a-bomb off the coast?”
2. Why a test would be believed or accepted by the Japanese leadership?
3. Any authoritative scholars or military leaders who thought doing so would actually work?

…Because absent answering all 3, suggestions to the contrary are just “miscellaneous people on the internet speculating that a demonstration is all the Japanese needed, and debating from their computers while sipping coffee.”

 

[Robyn_p]

If the A-bombs were not used, the US was prepared to invade, and plans were well along. It was one, or the other: The cancerous Japanese grip on the far east had to be eradicated.

At the time, there were 400,000 allied POWs in Japan - Americans; British; Australians; Dutch; etc. The Japanese government had a standing order: The moment the allies landed in Japan proper, all allied POWs were to be immediately executed. The A-bombs saved every one of those allied lives.

As a Catholic, you should know that we can’t judge the morality of an act based on its consequences alone. Whether or not the atomic bomb saved Allied lives or ended the war sooner is irrelevant to the question. If this was all that mattered in determining an act as moral or not, any number of atrocities can be justified. As long as it saves lives right?

The fact is, the Church unambiguously teaches that directly targeting civilians is ALWAYS immoral and never justified. As Catholics we simply can not support or defend such actions without dissenting from the Magisterium.

 

[Michael_Francis]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/nun_slapping_ruler_hg_clr.gif
Closed pending review by forum moderator Matilda Bennett

 

[PolarGuy]

How interesting…the thread has been reopened.

Robyn P,

 

[PolarGuy]

How interesting…the thread is now open for business again.

Robyn P, you write that “[w]hether or not the atomic bomb saved Allied lives or ended the war sooner is irrelevant to the question…”

Really? It’s IRRELEVANT to the question of the bomb’s being justified or not, that its use saved lives? It’s Irrelevant that it ended the war sooner?

Sorry, those aspects are very, very highly relevant, perhaps the most relevant facts that exist!

If your “reasoning” holds sway, you can just wave a magic wand and declare that any fact that doesn’t support your position is irrelevant. Too bad reality doesn’t work that way.

In fact, the consequences of any act are always relevant to whether the act was justified!

Further, although BackHand’s pictures are horrific, I’d urge every viewer to take a hard look at them, as they are actually representative of what Japan loosed on the world. I’d say the A-bomb’s use against those folks sort of puts paid to nice sweet naivety about the just war doctrine. WWII had to be fought; the Japanese committed unspeakable atrocities; had more such atrocities in store for 400,000 allied POWs if the A-bomb was not used. That’s reality, folks, and all the internet smarm 65+ years after the fact, from folks safe in their kitchens, displays a total disconnect from the reality of the evil facing the world in WWII.

 

[PolarGuy]

Further, to all those who just parrot, “we must never do evil that good may come of it!”, such sayings mean nothing unless you prove that dropping the Atomic bomb on Japan was an evil act. I say it was a necessary act that saved lives and ended a horrific war – and hence was not evil, but a moral good, and perhaps a moral imperative.

 

[PolarGuy]

One final point, to folks who want to quote US military leaders who expressed doubts about the bombings: As we all know, military intelligence on any side is often inaccurate. German military leadership had given several dates throughout WWII by which they forecasted that the Russians would be completely unable to continue fighting. Every date came and went and the Russians fought on. One can quote US military leaders all they like, who may have claimed, “the Japanese were about to give up and the bomb was unnecessary” - but I certainly can’t find any reliable Japanese military top leadership, let alone someone who could speak for the nation, who ever said, “WE were about to give up, and the bombing was unnecessary.” That distinction is important.

 

[Latias]

Latias, you keep wanting to talk about the Eastern Front…

…which is not what you started the thread about.

And BTW: Would you volunteer for the first wave? Please advise. I didn’t see an answer in there. I also didn’t see any response about 400,000 allied prisoners scheduled to be murdered; a million purple heart medals; Japanese soldiers forcing sons to rape their mothers; or anything else I said, so I’d be careful about accusing anyone else of ignorance…

Regarding Kesselring, Erich von Manstein and Gerd von Rundstedt was convicted for war crimes. Walter Model committed before he could be tried. It is also no unusual for Allied commanders to testify for German commanders. One example, of which I am sympathetic towards, was Chester Nimitz testifying on behalf of Karl Donitz. Friedrich Paulus was not a war criminal…

Regarding the 1 million Purple Hearts claim:

Wikipedia says:

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals (awarded for combat casualties) were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[57] There were so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.[57]

Still less than Stalingrad and the Rhzev sector causalities of the Red Army and not 1 million.

I felt the comment about volunteering didn’t deserve to be answered because it assumed the invasions would have taken place so it was begging the question, especially in the light of the fire-bombings, naval blockade and Invasion of Manchuria that would have likely forced acquiescence of the Japanese.

So where is the evidence that the allied prisoners were scheduled to be murdered.

I don’t think I could have volunteered for the first wave anyway.

And I would volunteer to pilot a Il-2 Sturmovik for the Red Army as some female Red Army aviators had done. I am one of those type of women who would gladly risk her life to repel the enemy. I just do not think I had the ability to dogfight against Me bf-109s and Fw-190s, but I would risk my life attacking German panzer columns while being under anti-aircraft fire. Sometimes, in order to live one’s life, you have to be willing to die.

 

[BackHand]

Japan deserved what it got. The Rape of Nanking, The Bataan Death March, Unit 273 which did Human experiments, the use of Gas and Biological weapons, and the 10-20 million murdered Chinese, the undeclared acts of aggression, make that statement true.

No one can definitively know if the bombings were necessary, what we do know is that there was a armed Japanese military rebellion that attempted to overthrow the Emperor and continue the war, **after both bombs had been dropped . **

If the war had continued it would have been horrible for all involved.
-Japan knew where the allies would invade due the geography of Japans home islands and had moved elite troops to those positions.
-An invasion might have meant Soviet involvement, which could have split Japan up into two nations one Communist one democratic, just like North and South Korea.
-An invasion would have killed much more Americans and Japanese.

In the end peace might have been possible with out the use of Nuclear Weapons. But the risk of not using them was too great. It is important to note that we have the luxury of scrutinizing Japans political situation, we have access too the diary’s and interviews of Japanese military and cabinet members, but people back then did not, no they saw the Soviets massing in Manchuria, they saw the 18 teen year olds training to invade, they saw the determined fanatical lengths to which Japan had already went to win the war, so they acted.

 

[Tomdstone]

Japan deserved what it got. The Rape of Nanking, The Bataan Death March, Unit 273 which did Human experiments, the use of Gas and Biological weapons, and the 10-20 million murdered Chinese, the undeclared acts of aggression, make that statement true.

No one can definitively know if the bombings were necessary, what we do know is that there was a armed Japanese military rebellion that attempted to overthrow the Emperor and continue the war, **after both bombs had been dropped . **

If the war had continued it would have been horrible for all involved.
-Japan knew where the allies would invade due the geography of Japans home islands and had moved elite troops to those positions.
-An invasion might have meant Soviet involvement, which could have split Japan up into two nations one Communist one democratic, just like North and South Korea.
-An invasion would have killed much more Americans and Japanese.

In the end peace might have been possible with out the use of Nuclear Weapons. But the risk of not using them was too great. It is important to note that we have the luxury of scrutinizing Japans political situation, we have access too the diary’s and interviews of Japanese military and cabinet members, but people back then did not, no they saw the Soviets massing in Manchuria, they saw the 18 teen year olds training to invade, they saw the determined fanatical lengths to which Japan had already went to win the war, so they acted.

The atomic bomb destroyed an entire city indiscriminately which is contrary to Catholic teaching.
Gaudium et spes 80, 81:
“Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.”

 

[BackHand]

Still less than Stalingrad and the Rhzev sector causalities of the Red Army and not 1 million.

Who cares? Its not a contest to see how many sacrifices a nation made to defeat the axis, losing 500,000 Americans and many more Japanese is horrible.

Also being proud of the Soviet loses is like being proud of buying a candy bar for 100 dollars, they faced an enemy they out number two to one, yet they lost so many people. That’s what they get for singing a nonaggression pact with the Nazis, gutting their officer corps, and leaving their border undefended.

And I would volunteer to pilot a Il-2 Sturmovik for the Red Army as some female Red Army aviators had done. I am one of those type of women who would gladly risk her life to repel the enemy. I just do not think I had the ability to dogfight against Me bf-109s and Fw-190s, but I would risk my life attacking German panzer columns while being under anti-aircraft fire. Sometimes, in order to live one’s life, you have to be willing to die.

And I would have volunteered to fight the Soviets during Finnish Winter War to repel the warmongering invader. But were talking about the pacific front. There is a good chance the war might have gone on, so would you have sent your nations men to fight and die knowing that it could be prevented? Because at the time people thought it would go on, and that the only way to end it was by using nukes.